free-range politics, organic community

An Hispanic Amity Shlaes

Submitted by arendt on Mon, 03/11/2019 - 7:18pm

I was out of town when AOC did her latest IdPol damage, saying the New Deal was "extremely racist". But, even though its late, I felt compelled to speak to it. Here's the pertinent quote from an interview at SXSW:

'The New Deal was an extremely economically racist policy that drew little red lines around black and brown communities and it invested in white America,' the Democratic socialist said during her interview on Saturday evening.

'It allowed white Americans access to home loans that black Americans didn't have access to, giving them access to the greatest source of intergenerational wealth.'

AOC said this in a discussion of her version of the Green New Deal. To drag in racism deliberately mixes economics, environmentalism, and Identity Politics, thereby making scientific discussion of the environment more difficult and detrimentally entangling climate change, which is a scientific reality, with unreconcilable social problems.

There has already been some c99p reaction to this latest damaging stunt - a move that sets progressives fighting among themselves while simultaneously validating a reactionary trope about FDR.

As k9disc said:

I know the New Deal was designed and implemented with preferential treatment for white people, but what wasn't in America? The New Deal was no more racist than America at the time, the American Military, Local and State Governments.

To call it a "racist deal" is to completely miss the point and to sully the idea of government doing New Deal type things for ALL Americans... And there it is... the dog whistle, amirite or what?

As a leftist, you don't shit on the New Deal as racist. It's a class/race short circuit argument. I find that to be rather troubling coming from "the left". I'm sensing lots of market based solutions coming out of AOC. And don't forget the public private partnerships...

If anything, FDR (and Eleanor) advanced the cause of black civil rights during a very dark period in American racial history when Southern racists had veto power in the Democratic Party. To denounce FDR with a common epithet (racism) is a hypocritical cheapshot - a cheapshot that reactionary politicians (racists themselves) have been using for decades.

Critics of the New Deal, eager to use any method they can to discredit the idea of a government that helps the people (ultimately, in an effort to keep tax rates low on their millionaire & billionaire donors), sometimes argue that Roosevelt and the New Deal were racist. See, for example, "Why Did FDR's New Deal Harm Blacks?," by Jim Powell of the right-wing CATO Institute (an organization founded by one of the Koch brothers...of course), December 3, 2003.

I don't think it can be disputed that Roosevelt and the New Deal had some racial aspects. But is that really surprising, considering that our entire country has been immersed in racism--from the time the first English colonist set foot in the New World, until today when, for example, a Republican U.S. Senator says, "My father had a ranch; we used to have 50-60 wetbacks to pick tomatoes"? Indeed, if Roosevelt had said, during his 1932 campaign, "If I am elected president, I will ensure that all races are treated equally, and I will, by law if necessary, ensure that segregation between the races is ended; the South will be put in it's place, once and for all," he would never have been elected president. And if he had said something like that during his presidency (and followed up with the necessary actions) he would never have been re-elected.

The fact of the matter is, FDR and the New Deal had to tread softly because much of America was not ready for racial integration and harmony. Indeed, communist and socialist parties in the United States, during the early twentieth century, pushed for racial equality...and you see how far that got them. Our nation has been so steeped in racism for so long that it is unreasonable to expect that FDR and the New Deal could have ended it in just a few years. Heck, even one of our national icons, John Wayne, a man who was awarded a Congressional Gold Medal in 1979, said in 1971, "I believe in white supremacy until the blacks are educated to a point of responsibility" ("John Wayne vs. John Wayne," The Dallas Morning News, May 23, 2014, citing a Playboy interview).

Objectively, AOC's words support the rightwing trashing of the New Deal. Full stop. To bring up the New Deal in such a negative IdPol manner when this may be the first time that today's 20 somethings have ever heard of the New Deal is disgusting. It is scoring IdPol points by smearing FDR for being caged within the political boundaries of 1930s America and ignoring his efforts cited in the New Deal blog.

AOC is already a "reverse ace" for the progressive movement.

1. In an unforced error, she praised John Warmonger McCain
2. She instantly signed on to the Russiagate delusion.
3. She has waffled several times about the US assault on Venezuela, instead of telling the truth.
4. Her Green New Deal (GND), a half-baked pile of grandstanding, validated the rightwing trope that progressives want the government to dictate to the economy - even as the GND proposed to hand unprecedented power over to private corporations.
5. Now, she has the chutzpah to throw shade at FDR, a Democrat who singlehandedly saved this country.

This (scripted?) behavior is why she is never really assaulted at by the corporate media, except in a guaranteed-to-miss way. They don't want to shut her up, the way they want to shut up Ilhan Omar, who is actually telling the unvarnished truth about Israel and about Obama.

In fact, AOC has a lot in common with Amity Shlaes.

Amity Shlaes is a journalist who writes for far, far too many respected publications...Shlaes is hailed as an "expert" in history and economics, although she holds only a BA in English.

She is also a minor darling of conservative media, and a professional Panglossian. She...rocketed to lesser stardom with her 2007 book, The Forgotten Man, a revisionist history of the Great Depression that made her the queen of New Deal denialism. ..

Shlaes is responsible for elevating the myth that "FDR made the Depression worse" from fringe, libertarian circles to Republican dogma in the past few years. Incidentally, back in the 50s, Dwight Eisenhower actually referred to those who opposed the New Deal as "stupid."

The commonalities: they both shoot their mouths off about stuff they are unqualified to pronounce upon. They both are media darlings, despite their lack of experience or credientials. They both shat upon FDR and the New Deal.

----

I have long since made my mind up about AOC. She is a corporate psyop. This latest assault on the legacy of economic progressivism is completely consistent with her M.O. The media supports her by publicizing her damaging IdPol statements - thereby crowding out class based analysis - and never really going to the mat with her, the way they have done with Omar or Bernie or Tulsi. They use her to discredit progressives. The dupes who fall for this act are hammering nails into the coffin of the left in this country.

Cognitive dissonance. That is the only way to describe the logic in thinking that the way to rid our government of depraved politicians is by electing new members into political parties that are built on the foundation of corruption and nepotism. Yet every election cycle, hard core partisan fanatics are sold on the idea that a shiny new face will ride into our nation’s capital and deliver us from the strangle hold of self-serving public swindlers.

By focusing on personalities, we keep missing the forest for the twigs. The problem of our politics is not the people we elect but the duopoly as a whole. It is beyond preposterous that a country with more than 300,000,000 is limited in choosing between two equally malicious options. Democrats and Republicans are offshoots of the same corporate ideology, they differ in their means but their end is the same.

Both parties enact policies of wealth transference from the many to a few and both are prostitutes of the military-financial, prison-industrial, media-politico and pharma-insurance complexes. Billions of dollars are funneled to the political parties through these various industries, believing that one person is powerful enough to overturn this level of graft and corruption that emodies both parties is either the height of delusion or the apex of duplicity.

A couple of weeks ago, I wrote about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and noted that she would eventually start pivoting away from the issues she ran on. It took less than a week for her to backtrack about Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and this morning I found out about Alexandria taking money from JP Morgan and private equity firm called Elevation Partners. This is not to single out Alexandria nor to bash her unfairly, when two parties have a choke hold on government and their corporate masters have a leash on both, you either play the insider game or you will not be long in power.

If you look back over the past 100 years, irrespective of the faces who occupy the White House and Congress, the policies of endless wars and catering to the 1% have been remarkably steady. That is because we keep voting between chicken shit and cow manure and expecting a gourmet of change. Will we keep doing the same thing for another 100 years? When will we stop focusing on personalities and find ways to dislodge both political parties? #EbolaPoliticalParties

Teodrose Fikre is very much in line with Caitlin Johnstone regarding narrative:

the status quo. A two faction scam that is rejected by a vast majority of Americans—when independents are combined with people who have been driven out of voting participation—is now being given a veneer of legitimacy by the latest media darling. Instead of finding ways to dismantle these two criminal enterprises who collude to commandeer our government, we will be navel gazing at yet another cult of personality...

If you take away nothing else from this article, I hope it’s this one overriding message. Do not be lured by the bait of actors and narratives. Unless you think that one person is powerful enough to sweep away decades, if not centuries, of rooted corruption built on the backs of these two malicious political parties, it is imperative that we focus on the systemic graft that allows them to fester. If your lawn is infested with weed, are you doing anything to solve the problem by planting a rose in the midst of the outbreak? .

Cognitive dissonance. That is the only way to describe the logic in thinking that the way to rid our government of depraved politicians is by electing new members into political parties that are built on the foundation of corruption and nepotism. Yet every election cycle, hard core partisan fanatics are sold on the idea that a shiny new face will ride into our nation’s capital and deliver us from the strangle hold of self-serving public swindlers.

By focusing on personalities, we keep missing the forest for the twigs. The problem of our politics is not the people we elect but the duopoly as a whole. It is beyond preposterous that a country with more than 300,000,000 is limited in choosing between two equally malicious options. Democrats and Republicans are offshoots of the same corporate ideology, they differ in their means but their end is the same.

Both parties enact policies of wealth transference from the many to a few and both are prostitutes of the military-financial, prison-industrial, media-politico and pharma-insurance complexes. Billions of dollars are funneled to the political parties through these various industries, believing that one person is powerful enough to overturn this level of graft and corruption that emodies both parties is either the height of delusion or the apex of duplicity.

A couple of weeks ago, I wrote about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and noted that she would eventually start pivoting away from the issues she ran on. It took less than a week for her to backtrack about Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and this morning I found out about Alexandria taking money from JP Morgan and private equity firm called Elevation Partners. This is not to single out Alexandria nor to bash her unfairly, when two parties have a choke hold on government and their corporate masters have a leash on both, you either play the insider game or you will not be long in power.

If you look back over the past 100 years, irrespective of the faces who occupy the White House and Congress, the policies of endless wars and catering to the 1% have been remarkably steady. That is because we keep voting between chicken shit and cow manure and expecting a gourmet of change. Will we keep doing the same thing for another 100 years? When will we stop focusing on personalities and find ways to dislodge both political parties? #EbolaPoliticalParties

Teodrose Fikre is very much in line with Caitlin Johnstone regarding narrative:

the status quo. A two faction scam that is rejected by a vast majority of Americans—when independents are combined with people who have been driven out of voting participation—is now being given a veneer of legitimacy by the latest media darling. Instead of finding ways to dismantle these two criminal enterprises who collude to commandeer our government, we will be navel gazing at yet another cult of personality...

If you take away nothing else from this article, I hope it’s this one overriding message. Do not be lured by the bait of actors and narratives. Unless you think that one person is powerful enough to sweep away decades, if not centuries, of rooted corruption built on the backs of these two malicious political parties, it is imperative that we focus on the systemic graft that allows them to fester. If your lawn is infested with weed, are you doing anything to solve the problem by planting a rose in the midst of the outbreak? .

Teodrose Fikre is very much in line with Caitlin Johnstone regarding narrative:

the status quo. A two faction scam that is rejected by a vast majority of Americans—when independents are combined with people who have been driven out of voting participation—is now being given a veneer of legitimacy by the latest media darling. Instead of finding ways to dismantle these two criminal enterprises who collude to commandeer our government, we will be navel gazing at yet another cult of personality...

If you take away nothing else from this article, I hope it’s this one overriding message. Do not be lured by the bait of actors and narratives. Unless you think that one person is powerful enough to sweep away decades, if not centuries, of rooted corruption built on the backs of these two malicious political parties, it is imperative that we focus on the systemic graft that allows them to fester. If your lawn is infested with weed, are you doing anything to solve the problem by planting a rose in the midst of the outbreak? .

I am discussing the corporate strategy. Strategy, In Eleanor R's heirarchy is an "idea". The strategy is to give her tons of free air time and never really criticize her. All this is to have her hijack the progressive movement and run it into an IdPol ditch.

For the corporate purpose, she could be anyone who is photogenic and well spoken, so long as they do and say what they are told. She is merely a means to accomplish a corporate end.

@arendt
AOC is a person. And you may think you have written about an idea. But it reads as a hit piece on a person. The opening paragraph calls out AOC. Almost the entire body of the article focuses on AOC and your closing remarks are about AOC. And your reply to me was an attack on AOC. Had you talked about an idea and focused on several people that would be different. You took an idea and used it to hammer one person.
I like the ER quote that you have included. It has great meaning. It should be honored.

I am discussing the corporate strategy. Strategy, In Eleanor R's heirarchy is an "idea". The strategy is to give her tons of free air time and never really criticize her. All this is to have her hijack the progressive movement and run it into an IdPol ditch.

For the corporate purpose, she could be anyone who is photogenic and well spoken, so long as they do and say what they are told. She is merely a means to accomplish a corporate end.

My "attacks", as you provocatively phrase it, are on the strategy and actions of this corporate-supported persona. I would dissect the actions of anybody supporting the same strategy. You fail to acknowledge that all of my comments are about her actions, not personal attacks. It is you who wants to make it personal. You want to claim that attacking the actions is attacking the person. I do not buy that.

As for AOC, she is a willing participant in this attempt to derail enviornmentalism with IdPol. She is a politician. Politicians get criticized for their actions.

#1.1.1.2.1 AOC is a person. And you may think you have written about an idea. But it reads as a hit piece on a person. The opening paragraph calls out AOC. Almost the entire body of the article focuses on AOC and your closing remarks are about AOC. And your reply to me was an attack on AOC. Had you talked about an idea and focused on several people that would be different. You took an idea and used it to hammer one person.
I like the ER quote that you have included. It has great meaning. It should be honored.

@arendt
Just don't pretend to be taking some high road. Calling someone a tool is an attack.
As you said yesterday at 3:18(?) and quoting from memory "this thread is about AOC".
It isn't that I disagree that there are some valid points to be made about AOC and her conviction to environmentalism, it is just so disingenuous to pretend to be taking some high road as you are attacking people.
Your mirror may need to be cleaned. You might see yourself a little better.

My "attacks", as you provocatively phrase it, are on the strategy and actions of this corporate-supported persona. I would dissect the actions of anybody supporting the same strategy. You fail to acknowledge that all of my comments are about her actions, not personal attacks. It is you who wants to make it personal. You want to claim that attacking the actions is attacking the person. I do not buy that.

As for AOC, she is a willing participant in this attempt to derail enviornmentalism with IdPol. She is a politician. Politicians get criticized for their actions.

@wouldsman
"This thread is about AOC.". Yes my memory was correct. Not sure how to do a quote on this site.

#1.1.1.2.1.1.1 Just don't pretend to be taking some high road. Calling someone a tool is an attack.
As you said yesterday at 3:18(?) and quoting from memory "this thread is about AOC".
It isn't that I disagree that there are some valid points to be made about AOC and her conviction to environmentalism, it is just so disingenuous to pretend to be taking some high road as you are attacking people.
Your mirror may need to be cleaned. You might see yourself a little better.

@wouldsman
highlight the text you want quoted with your mouse cursor then click the blockquote icon above the text editor (it's the one with the quotation marks (") and your done. That's pretty much how all the icons above the text editor work except for the first 3 on the left.

#1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1 "This thread is about AOC.". Yes my memory was correct. Not sure how to do a quote on this site.

Cognitive dissonance. That is the only way to describe the logic in thinking that the way to rid our government of depraved politicians is by electing new members into political parties that are built on the foundation of corruption and nepotism. Yet every election cycle, hard core partisan fanatics are sold on the idea that a shiny new face will ride into our nation’s capital and deliver us from the strangle hold of self-serving public swindlers.

By focusing on personalities, we keep missing the forest for the twigs. The problem of our politics is not the people we elect but the duopoly as a whole. It is beyond preposterous that a country with more than 300,000,000 is limited in choosing between two equally malicious options. Democrats and Republicans are offshoots of the same corporate ideology, they differ in their means but their end is the same.

Both parties enact policies of wealth transference from the many to a few and both are prostitutes of the military-financial, prison-industrial, media-politico and pharma-insurance complexes. Billions of dollars are funneled to the political parties through these various industries, believing that one person is powerful enough to overturn this level of graft and corruption that emodies both parties is either the height of delusion or the apex of duplicity.

A couple of weeks ago, I wrote about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and noted that she would eventually start pivoting away from the issues she ran on. It took less than a week for her to backtrack about Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and this morning I found out about Alexandria taking money from JP Morgan and private equity firm called Elevation Partners. This is not to single out Alexandria nor to bash her unfairly, when two parties have a choke hold on government and their corporate masters have a leash on both, you either play the insider game or you will not be long in power.

If you look back over the past 100 years, irrespective of the faces who occupy the White House and Congress, the policies of endless wars and catering to the 1% have been remarkably steady. That is because we keep voting between chicken shit and cow manure and expecting a gourmet of change. Will we keep doing the same thing for another 100 years? When will we stop focusing on personalities and find ways to dislodge both political parties? #EbolaPoliticalParties

Cognitive dissonance. That is the only way to describe the logic in thinking that the way to rid our government of depraved politicians is by electing new members into political parties that are built on the foundation of corruption and nepotism. Yet every election cycle, hard core partisan fanatics are sold on the idea that a shiny new face will ride into our nation’s capital and deliver us from the strangle hold of self-serving public swindlers.

By focusing on personalities, we keep missing the forest for the twigs. The problem of our politics is not the people we elect but the duopoly as a whole. It is beyond preposterous that a country with more than 300,000,000 is limited in choosing between two equally malicious options. Democrats and Republicans are offshoots of the same corporate ideology, they differ in their means but their end is the same.

Both parties enact policies of wealth transference from the many to a few and both are prostitutes of the military-financial, prison-industrial, media-politico and pharma-insurance complexes. Billions of dollars are funneled to the political parties through these various industries, believing that one person is powerful enough to overturn this level of graft and corruption that emodies both parties is either the height of delusion or the apex of duplicity.

A couple of weeks ago, I wrote about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and noted that she would eventually start pivoting away from the issues she ran on. It took less than a week for her to backtrack about Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and this morning I found out about Alexandria taking money from JP Morgan and private equity firm called Elevation Partners. This is not to single out Alexandria nor to bash her unfairly, when two parties have a choke hold on government and their corporate masters have a leash on both, you either play the insider game or you will not be long in power.

If you look back over the past 100 years, irrespective of the faces who occupy the White House and Congress, the policies of endless wars and catering to the 1% have been remarkably steady. That is because we keep voting between chicken shit and cow manure and expecting a gourmet of change. Will we keep doing the same thing for another 100 years? When will we stop focusing on personalities and find ways to dislodge both political parties? #EbolaPoliticalParties

Nailed it again.

up

5 users have voted.

—

"I don't want to run the empire, I want to bring it down!" ~Dr. Cornel West

"There is no instance of a nation benefitting from prolonged warfare." Sun Tzu

I liked that she was bringing some of these things to the forefront, but I agree with what you write--there seems something off.

Interestingly, Tulsi Gabbard has not signed off on the Green New Deal, complaining that it either doesn't address certain things or leaves things too vague. If Gabbard wanted to gain "brownie points" she probably would have signed off right away like so many others. Just another piece of evidence in my view that Tulsi is the real deal.

I feel like AOC is setting herself up with the goal to be the first female president, assuming one isn't chosen this year. How old is she? 29. She's 6 years away.

@apenultimate
Since she's shifted talk about the progressive left to now make it a Freedom vs Socialism debate. socialists, not progressives, is what we're called now. I don't recall being a socialist. While I agree with a great deal of socialism and recognize that it's a part of everyday life, I am not a card carrying socialist.
Then she talked about 90% corporate taxes and got the right worked up socialists were coming for their money. Not strategically sound. But on purpose? I doubt it. The right always gets riled up over something anyways, that's already a given.

The MSM used her to make those conflations. I think the MSM is trying to exploit her. But I don't think that AOC is herself anything but who she says she is, a human being, trying to do the best she can. Sometimes dead on, sometimes being led astray. Mostly courageous, sometimes wary. Always waiting for the next trap to be sprung on her. But not a corporate shill.

However, I fear when she's being led down the automation road..

I began to worry.

“We should be excited by that. But the reason we’re not excited by it is because we live in a society where if you don’t have a job, you are left to die. And that is, at its core, our problem.”

The PTB want automation. It's the ultimate slave labor. Us, however, well we muck up the environment. The PTB want a green planet - for themselves. Once they've fully automated, then the rest of us need to go. A worldwide genocide on biblical scale. That's what I foresee for the human race.

They'll probably call it World War V.

I liked that she was bringing some of these things to the forefront, but I agree with what you write--there seems something off.

Interestingly, Tulsi Gabbard has not signed off on the Green New Deal, complaining that it either doesn't address certain things or leaves things too vague. If Gabbard wanted to gain "brownie points" she probably would have signed off right away like so many others. Just another piece of evidence in my view that Tulsi is the real deal.

I feel like AOC is setting herself up with the goal to be the first female president, assuming one isn't chosen this year. How old is she? 29. She's 6 years away.

Do you want to complain about someone who acknowledges that things done by the heroes in the past show they had feet of clay and also complain about poeple who give those in the past a pass because "that's the way things were back then"? That would seem contrary to much of what gets posted here.

Pick most president in the history of the USA and you'll find something racist that they did. Or a war crime, or a crime against the US citizenry. Are you going to hold them all accountable or not? Or does everyone get a pass when "having slaves was just the way things were back then"?

Admit the failings and admit where they got something right in spite of their failings. The New Deal did exclude a lot of US citizens "of color" and shouldn't have.

Will someone make a case for "Pelosi did a lot of bad, but being a corrupt politician in thrall to the oligarchs was just the way things were, look at the good things she did so all in all she was wonderful and we could have used more like her"?

Unfortunately, it seems that once you start to understand the failings of politics down through history, there's damn few "heroes" who don't have a skeleton in the closet. We seem to be lucky if we get someone who is predominately good vs predominately bad, but even then the "good ones" often do a lot of damage.

FDR is a unique person, a once in a century guy, not just a run of the mill politician. He is someone who almost singlehandedly prevented the US from going fascist by starting the New Deal. The New Deal made the American middle class possible. It is no small thing to smear FDR and the New Deal.

To complain that FDR did not instantly end racism and therefore has "feet of clay" is like criticising Jesus for walking on water by saying he didn't know how to swim.

Do you want to complain about someone who acknowledges that things done by the heroes in the past show they had feet of clay and also complain about poeple who give those in the past a pass because "that's the way things were back then"? That would seem contrary to much of what gets posted here.

Pick most president in the history of the USA and you'll find something racist that they did. Or a war crime, or a crime against the US citizenry. Are you going to hold them all accountable or not? Or does everyone get a pass when "having slaves was just the way things were back then"?

Admit the failings and admit where they got something right in spite of their failings. The New Deal did exclude a lot of US citizens "of color" and shouldn't have.

Will someone make a case for "Pelosi did a lot of bad, but being a corrupt politician in thrall to the oligarchs was just the way things were, look at the good things she did so all in all she was wonderful and we could have used more like her"?

Unfortunately, it seems that once you start to understand the failings of politics down through history, there's damn few "heroes" who don't have a skeleton in the closet. We seem to be lucky if we get someone who is predominately good vs predominately bad, but even then the "good ones" often do a lot of damage.

for each of us. Being on the wrong side of the New Deal is the wrong place to be. It could be because she is too young to have much perspective. Worse, she can believe that it all wrong because some of it didn't do enough for absolutely everyone. You know like reparations.

Do you want to complain about someone who acknowledges that things done by the heroes in the past show they had feet of clay and also complain about poeple who give those in the past a pass because "that's the way things were back then"? That would seem contrary to much of what gets posted here.

Pick most president in the history of the USA and you'll find something racist that they did. Or a war crime, or a crime against the US citizenry. Are you going to hold them all accountable or not? Or does everyone get a pass when "having slaves was just the way things were back then"?

Admit the failings and admit where they got something right in spite of their failings. The New Deal did exclude a lot of US citizens "of color" and shouldn't have.

Will someone make a case for "Pelosi did a lot of bad, but being a corrupt politician in thrall to the oligarchs was just the way things were, look at the good things she did so all in all she was wonderful and we could have used more like her"?

Unfortunately, it seems that once you start to understand the failings of politics down through history, there's damn few "heroes" who don't have a skeleton in the closet. We seem to be lucky if we get someone who is predominately good vs predominately bad, but even then the "good ones" often do a lot of damage.

FDR gets bashed so that the New Deal will be discredited. Americans imagine politics through individual personalities; discredit the individual and you discredit his ideas. This is done constantly in reference to the founders, for instance, and it's sloppy thinking. George Mason was a slaveholder. That makes him a sinful person. However, that doesn't make the ideas basic to the Fourth Amendment any less good. Even Jefferson, who was a bastard, was right about the fact that the existence and nature of governments should be determined by the will of those governed (not that he invented that idea). Saying "Jefferson was a slaveholder, you know," or "You only think that idea is good because of your white privilege" is, at best, sloppy thinking. At worst it's exactly what k9disc said AOC's comment was: a dogwhistle.

Having a country manage its finances through a public bank is not a bad idea either, but the number of people who condemn such an idea because Hitler invented Deutschebank is legion.

This is a cheap trick, a farce to anyone with common sense, but it works well in the media--particularly social media.

Do you want to complain about someone who acknowledges that things done by the heroes in the past show they had feet of clay and also complain about poeple who give those in the past a pass because "that's the way things were back then"? That would seem contrary to much of what gets posted here.

Pick most president in the history of the USA and you'll find something racist that they did. Or a war crime, or a crime against the US citizenry. Are you going to hold them all accountable or not? Or does everyone get a pass when "having slaves was just the way things were back then"?

Admit the failings and admit where they got something right in spite of their failings. The New Deal did exclude a lot of US citizens "of color" and shouldn't have.

Will someone make a case for "Pelosi did a lot of bad, but being a corrupt politician in thrall to the oligarchs was just the way things were, look at the good things she did so all in all she was wonderful and we could have used more like her"?

Unfortunately, it seems that once you start to understand the failings of politics down through history, there's damn few "heroes" who don't have a skeleton in the closet. We seem to be lucky if we get someone who is predominately good vs predominately bad, but even then the "good ones" often do a lot of damage.

up

17 users have voted.

—

The issue is patriotism. You've got to get back to your planet and stop the Commies. All it takes is a few good men.
--Q

FDR gets bashed so that the New Deal will be discredited. Americans imagine politics through individual personalities; discredit the individual and you discredit his ideas. This is done constantly in reference to the founders, for instance, and it's sloppy thinking. George Mason was a slaveholder. That makes him a sinful person. However, that doesn't make the ideas basic to the Fourth Amendment any less good. Even Jefferson, who was a bastard, was right about the fact that the existence and nature of governments should be determined by the will of those governed (not that he invented that idea). Saying "Jefferson was a slaveholder, you know," or "You only think that idea is good because of your white privilege" is, at best, sloppy thinking. At worst it's exactly what k9disc said AOC's comment was: a dogwhistle.

Having a country manage its finances through a public bank is not a bad idea either, but the number of people who condemn such an idea because Hitler invented Deutschebank is legion.

This is a cheap trick, a farce to anyone with common sense, but it works well in the media--particularly social media.

is alive and well on the internet, so some percentage of all the people you talk to either aren't people at all, or are operatives, probably manning more than one personality. Their mission is conversation-steering; character assassination is their main tactic. That's just a fact of the internet.

But of course not everybody who wants to think well of a politician is an operative or a bit of code--far from it. The actual people who are simply expressing their actual opinions sometimes discount or even ignore evidence that casts doubt on leadership. Part of that is just a human thing. Human beings need to have faith in their leaders, or at least it's a heavy lift for most members of our species to do without leaders. Often, people place their faith in leaders the way I'd place water in a pot. If the pot breaks, the water goes. Thus, in defending the leader, they are defending their own capacity to believe in a better tomorrow, and in their own ability to affect their surroundings for the good, which should make it obvious why people defend their leaders so assiduously.

Another part of this is specific to our country and has to do with duopoly enforcement.

Will someone make a case for "Pelosi did a lot of bad, but being a corrupt politician in thrall to the oligarchs was just the way things were, look at the good things she did so all in all she was wonderful and we could have used more like her"?

What good things did she do? The last time I remember her doing something good was when she tried to stop the Iraq War. That was before she was named Minority Leader, and as soon as she was, she did a 180 on Iraq.

Since then, the only (possibly) good thing she's done is support and vote for ACES (the American Clean Energy and Security Act). I say "possibly" because ACES was actually pretty awful once the concessions to petroleum giants were incorporated. I'm wracking my brain to think of anything else good she's done in the past 15 years.

Comparing her record to FDR's is farcical. Your analogy fails.

Do you want to complain about someone who acknowledges that things done by the heroes in the past show they had feet of clay and also complain about poeple who give those in the past a pass because "that's the way things were back then"? That would seem contrary to much of what gets posted here.

Pick most president in the history of the USA and you'll find something racist that they did. Or a war crime, or a crime against the US citizenry. Are you going to hold them all accountable or not? Or does everyone get a pass when "having slaves was just the way things were back then"?

Admit the failings and admit where they got something right in spite of their failings. The New Deal did exclude a lot of US citizens "of color" and shouldn't have.

Will someone make a case for "Pelosi did a lot of bad, but being a corrupt politician in thrall to the oligarchs was just the way things were, look at the good things she did so all in all she was wonderful and we could have used more like her"?

Unfortunately, it seems that once you start to understand the failings of politics down through history, there's damn few "heroes" who don't have a skeleton in the closet. We seem to be lucky if we get someone who is predominately good vs predominately bad, but even then the "good ones" often do a lot of damage.

up

12 users have voted.

—

The issue is patriotism. You've got to get back to your planet and stop the Commies. All it takes is a few good men.
--Q

Pelosi is a manager. She moves along whatever is funneled her way and weeds out undesirable (to donors) legislation. I suppose she's a "good" manager, but managers are most fondly remembered for making the trains run on time, not ideas.

Will someone make a case for "Pelosi did a lot of bad, but being a corrupt politician in thrall to the oligarchs was just the way things were, look at the good things she did so all in all she was wonderful and we could have used more like her"?

What good things did she do? The last time I remember her doing something good was when she tried to stop the Iraq War. That was before she was named Minority Leader, and as soon as she was, she did a 180 on Iraq.

Since then, the only (possibly) good thing she's done is support and vote for ACES (the American Clean Energy and Security Act). I say "possibly" because ACES was actually pretty awful once the concessions to petroleum giants were incorporated. I'm wracking my brain to think of anything else good she's done in the past 15 years.

I don't mean to be a shit here, but which trains are running more on time because she has a position of authority? It seems to me like we're going the same direction that we have been since 1980, and at roughly the same pace as we've been moving since it became clear that Obama wasn't going to change the direction of the country (everything sped up at that point).

In other words, our civilization is being dismantled around us in ways that most of us can no longer express or even conceive. Criticisms that were made even under the Bush administration have disappeared. Analysis has been replaced by scapegoating. The response to any problem is to find a target and heap opprobrium on it. Or to cut non-military spending. That's basically all that's left.

Pelosi is, indeed, managing this status quo, but since this status quo is more like a degenerative condition than a civilization, the management of it must be considered the lamest and most useless form of politics ever developed. It's not like she's managing the symptoms to lessen their impact; she's managing the situation so that the degenerative condition can continue to do its work. Who protects a disease?

#4.4 he established that government should be responsible for more than commerce and defense and responsive to the peoples needs.

Pelosi is a manager. She moves along whatever is funneled her way and weeds out undesirable (to donors) legislation. I suppose she's a "good" manager, but managers are most fondly remembered for making the trains run on time, not ideas.

up

4 users have voted.

—

The issue is patriotism. You've got to get back to your planet and stop the Commies. All it takes is a few good men.
--Q

@Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal
the mention of Pelosi being a "good" manager and trains was referencing what they said about Mussolini and the fascist government, that least he made the trains run on time. Managers are told what to do, and they make it happen. I didn't mean what they did was inherently good. The opposite, really.

I don't mean to be a shit here, but which trains are running more on time because she has a position of authority? It seems to me like we're going the same direction that we have been since 1980, and at roughly the same pace as we've been moving since it became clear that Obama wasn't going to change the direction of the country (everything sped up at that point).

In other words, our civilization is being dismantled around us in ways that most of us can no longer express or even conceive. Criticisms that were made even under the Bush administration have disappeared. Analysis has been replaced by scapegoating. The response to any problem is to find a target and heap opprobrium on it. Or to cut non-military spending. That's basically all that's left.

Pelosi is, indeed, managing this status quo, but since this status quo is more like a degenerative condition than a civilization, the management of it must be considered the lamest and most useless form of politics ever developed. It's not like she's managing the symptoms to lessen their impact; she's managing the situation so that the degenerative condition can continue to do its work. Who protects a disease?

#4.4.1.1 the mention of Pelosi being a "good" manager and trains was referencing what they said about Mussolini and the fascist government, that least he made the trains run on time. Managers are told what to do, and they make it happen. I didn't mean what they did was inherently good. The opposite, really.

up

0 users have voted.

—

The issue is patriotism. You've got to get back to your planet and stop the Commies. All it takes is a few good men.
--Q

@MichaelSF
had food, clothing and work opportunities from the New Deal. It was a big help. But FDR sent the Japanese Americans to internment camps with an Executive Order, not just signing off on a bill from Congress, so big pluses AND big minuses for FDR.

Some here seem to very clearly to have animus against Ocasio-Cortez, Sanders, Gabbard, and others. If you are going to have a purity test for the goose, then let's see the gander having one applied too.

Do you want to complain about someone who acknowledges that things done by the heroes in the past show they had feet of clay and also complain about poeple who give those in the past a pass because "that's the way things were back then"? That would seem contrary to much of what gets posted here.

Pick most president in the history of the USA and you'll find something racist that they did. Or a war crime, or a crime against the US citizenry. Are you going to hold them all accountable or not? Or does everyone get a pass when "having slaves was just the way things were back then"?

Admit the failings and admit where they got something right in spite of their failings. The New Deal did exclude a lot of US citizens "of color" and shouldn't have.

Will someone make a case for "Pelosi did a lot of bad, but being a corrupt politician in thrall to the oligarchs was just the way things were, look at the good things she did so all in all she was wonderful and we could have used more like her"?

Unfortunately, it seems that once you start to understand the failings of politics down through history, there's damn few "heroes" who don't have a skeleton in the closet. We seem to be lucky if we get someone who is predominately good vs predominately bad, but even then the "good ones" often do a lot of damage.

Some here seem to very clearly to have animus against Ocasio-Cortez, Sanders, Gabbard, and others. If you are going to have a purity test for the goose, then let's see the gander having one applied too.

This thread is about AOC. There is very little mention of Sanders or Gabard. None of others.
So where do you get this broad claim, and why does the OP bother you so much?

In case you are new here, its my stance that the political process is completely corrupt. If you want to talk "purity tests", every name Democrat would fail. Its obvious I think AOC is a fraud. And, I began the essay with five examples of why she is a fraud. The reason I have singled out AOC is because it is such a deeply planned and sophisticated fraud that has fooled large numbers of people who do not follow politics as obsessively as we here at c99p do.

#4 had food, clothing and work opportunities from the New Deal. It was a big help. But FDR sent the Japanese Americans to internment camps with an Executive Order, not just signing off on a bill from Congress, so big pluses AND big minuses for FDR.

Some here seem to very clearly to have animus against Ocasio-Cortez, Sanders, Gabbard, and others. If you are going to have a purity test for the goose, then let's see the gander having one applied too.

Since Pelosi hasn't done anything that I can remember for the last fifteen years that was of any use. Partying because the Supreme Court struck down DOMA doesn't count as doing something. Or are we still trotting out the Lily Ledbetter Act as proof of concept?

ACES is pretty much the only thing I can think of that she's done in fifteen years that could be argued to be good, or at least useful. But the Democratic Senate took care of that by pronouncing it dead on arrival. And even ACES was filled with NAFTA-styled prostrations before the private sector generally, and the oil barons specifically, which is not a particularly good thing for a climate bill.

#4 had food, clothing and work opportunities from the New Deal. It was a big help. But FDR sent the Japanese Americans to internment camps with an Executive Order, not just signing off on a bill from Congress, so big pluses AND big minuses for FDR.

Some here seem to very clearly to have animus against Ocasio-Cortez, Sanders, Gabbard, and others. If you are going to have a purity test for the goose, then let's see the gander having one applied too.

up

2 users have voted.

—

The issue is patriotism. You've got to get back to your planet and stop the Commies. All it takes is a few good men.
--Q

everything that is wrong with seeing politics solely through the lens of individual character.

First, you discuss the benefits of the New Deal. Then you say that FDR put Japanese-Americans in internment camps. The internment camps have nothing to do with the New Deal except that the same individual led both efforts.

So if I discovered the cure for cancer, but also sold plaster powder as infant formula in India, would you throw away the cancer cure because I had murdered infants with fake milk powder? Would you stop to check whether the cancer cure worked or not? If it did work, would you still throw it away because a bad person discovered it?

If you are willing to throw away good ideas because bad people came up with them, doesn't that make you the purist?

#4 had food, clothing and work opportunities from the New Deal. It was a big help. But FDR sent the Japanese Americans to internment camps with an Executive Order, not just signing off on a bill from Congress, so big pluses AND big minuses for FDR.

Some here seem to very clearly to have animus against Ocasio-Cortez, Sanders, Gabbard, and others. If you are going to have a purity test for the goose, then let's see the gander having one applied too.

up

2 users have voted.

—

The issue is patriotism. You've got to get back to your planet and stop the Commies. All it takes is a few good men.
--Q

The New Deal was also implemented to undermine any traction the labor movement and class consciousness had in the US Empire. The pigs feared a Soviet-style uprising, though that didn't stop them from trying to kill one of their own. Of course, since 'Murica will never reconcile its own history, most people don't know that.

Don't get the wrong idea: AOC is another bait and switch, pure and simple. A tactic as old as capitalism itself.

up

15 users have voted.

—

Modern education is little more than toeing the line for the capitalist pigs.

That he prevented a revolution by moderating the Great Depression and giving workers some rights.

The issue for me is that FDR and the ND have become the last good thing standing on the progressive side of politics. The right has been gunning for the ND since the day FDR proposed it. Despite the fact that Social Security and many Federal agencies are still functioning, the ND has essentially passed into mythology. It is a talisman. It is an article of faith.

For a supposed Democrat to attack it is beyond the pale, it is Clintonesque in its triangulation. Here we are trying to parse out whether or not IdPol trumps 80 years of good outcomes for America. We are playing the game of the triangulators. And AOC is one.

The New Deal was also implemented to undermine any traction the labor movement and class consciousness had in the US Empire. The pigs feared a Soviet-style uprising, though that didn't stop them from trying to kill one of their own. Of course, since 'Murica will never reconcile its own history, most people don't know that.

Don't get the wrong idea: AOC is another bait and switch, pure and simple. A tactic as old as capitalism itself.

The New Deal was also implemented to undermine any traction the labor movement and class consciousness had in the US Empire.

You won't get me to excuse the shortcomings, such as they were, of the New Deal. Despite any failings, the New Deal has had an enormously positive impact on our society, IMO. As such, like anything, it offers us a chance to learn and improve upon it.

To me, that process never ends.

The New Deal was also implemented to undermine any traction the labor movement and class consciousness had in the US Empire. The pigs feared a Soviet-style uprising, though that didn't stop them from trying to kill one of their own. Of course, since 'Murica will never reconcile its own history, most people don't know that.

Don't get the wrong idea: AOC is another bait and switch, pure and simple. A tactic as old as capitalism itself.

exactly what traction did labor unions have when everyone was unemployed and starving? Can't unionize a workforce when there aren't any.

The New Deal was also implemented to undermine any traction the labor movement and class consciousness had in the US Empire. The pigs feared a Soviet-style uprising, though that didn't stop them from trying to kill one of their own. Of course, since 'Murica will never reconcile its own history, most people don't know that.

Don't get the wrong idea: AOC is another bait and switch, pure and simple. A tactic as old as capitalism itself.

hammer on. She is basically an actress chosen and assigned to promote the ideals and opinions of those behind her election. It's one of the five primary goals of the New Green Deal.

E) to promote justice and equity by stopping current, preventing future, and repairing historic oppression of indigenous peoples, communities of color, migrant communities, deindustrialized communities, depopulated rural communities, the poor, low-income workers, women, the elderly, the unhoused, people with disabilities, and youth (referred to in this resolution as “frontline and vulnerable communities”);

It appears they've decided to use this approach to support that goal and ideology. Just like she didn't have anything to do with the New Green Deal proposal, what she's saying here is well coached and rehearsed with her handlers.

and poisoning environmentalism in the process. She (or her handlers) are deliberately moving the argument from science to IdPol. That will turn off a lot of Americans, from left to right.

IMHO, the game here is to discredit the left by having AOC steal its clothes and then drag them through a sewer.

hammer on. She is basically an actress chosen and assigned to promote the ideals and opinions of those behind her election. It's one of the five primary goals of the New Green Deal.

E) to promote justice and equity by stopping current, preventing future, and repairing historic oppression of indigenous peoples, communities of color, migrant communities, deindustrialized communities, depopulated rural communities, the poor, low-income workers, women, the elderly, the unhoused, people with disabilities, and youth (referred to in this resolution as “frontline and vulnerable communities”);

It appears they've decided to use this approach to support that goal and ideology. Just like she didn't have anything to do with the New Green Deal proposal, what she's saying here is well coached and rehearsed with her handlers.

to say why i don't agree with this entirely, but allow me to try, if you will. first, i'm not sure any longer who the 'left' is, but counterpunchers, a few black agenda report authors, even the black alliance for peace (iirc) seem to support 'the deal'. one can't get away from either ocasio or her GND at any of the myriad sites i check out semi-regularly (same for ilhan omar, but that's a whole 'nother story i'll leave alone here in the main).

but as to poisoning environmentalism, i can't think of one of the climate gods in the US who hasn't done the same for over a decade, from bill mckibben (trade your gas-guzzling SUV for an electirc one!) to naomi klein. but at least the green party's NGD seemed to recognize that the amerikan military has the largest carbon footprint on the planet, or at least it seemed to, given how the plan would fund it.

but to my mind, global capital is the author of climate chaos, and not only does green capitalism NOT address carbon usage, it exacerbates it, as 'zero-carbon emissions' is just another capitalist con to offset carbon usage, as the indigenous in 'our backyard' know only too well. i.e., to use capital to ameliorate it...is another ConAct with amerika (h/t newt gingrich).

but i will say that once the freakout of the fifth IPPC report came out, it seemed like a good plan to run on in 2020, and yes, esp. w/ the appeal afforded to 'disadvantaged communities', disabled, people of color, and other 'community stakeholders' (a corporate buzzword if i ever heard one), yada, yada.

never mind that the US is one nation on the planet, and there's a whole world of carbon footprints out there to consider, but but but...in document...we can export all our fine green tech around the world! (or close). so the deal never really mentions fracking, either in coal or shale (again, iirc), which is an ecological disaster, as not only does methane create carbon feedback loops, but the process uses millions of gallons of water for each fracked hole. water scarcity, i'd add is epic.

speaking of which, the deal does promise clean water everywhere, or some such, but the impossible dream of that needs to be considered: how? (guess i should have read the document again myself, sorry). anyway, i've lost my chain of thought, and need to go take care of a few chores. ; )

and here i was arguing to myself to stay offa this thread, arendt. go figure.

edited a bit, but i did also want to include one of the many ways she steps on her own brand, i.e. on twitter: 'when i spoke to HS students who asked me what they could do to help climate change, i told them that at least once a week they should take their own cup and bag to starbucks', or srsly close to that.

not to mention, it's already too late to mitigate climate chaos as i type.

to say why i don't agree with this entirely, but allow me to try, if you will. first, i'm not sure any longer who the 'left' is, but counterpunchers, a few black agenda report authors, even the black alliance for peace (iirc) seem to support 'the deal'. one can't get away from either ocasio or her GND at any of the myriad sites i check out semi-regularly (same for ilhan omar, but that's a whole 'nother story i'll leave alone here in the main).

but as to poisoning environmentalism, i can't think of one of the climate gods in the US who hasn't done the same for over a decade, from bill mckibben (trade your gas-guzzling SUV for an electirc one!) to naomi klein. but at least the green party's NGD seemed to recognize that the amerikan military has the largest carbon footprint on the planet, or at least it seemed to, given how the plan would fund it.

but to my mind, global capital is the author of climate chaos, and not only does green capitalism NOT address carbon usage, it exacerbates it, as 'zero-carbon emissions' is just another capitalist con to offset carbon usage, as the indigenous in 'our backyard' know only too well. i.e., to use capital to ameliorate it...is another ConAct with amerika (h/t newt gingrich).

but i will say that once the freakout of the fifth IPPC report came out, it seemed like a good plan to run on in 2020, and yes, esp. w/ the appeal afforded to 'disadvantaged communities', disabled, people of color, and other 'community stakeholders' (a corporate buzzword if i ever heard one), yada, yada.

never mind that the US is one nation on the planet, and there's a whole world of carbon footprints out there to consider, but but but...in document...we can export all our fine green tech around the world! (or close). so the deal never really mentions fracking, either in coal or shale (again, iirc), which is an ecological disaster, as not only does methane create carbon feedback loops, but the process uses millions of gallons of water for each fracked hole. water scarcity, i'd add is epic.

speaking of which, the deal does promise clean water everywhere, or some such, but the impossible dream of that needs to be considered: how? (guess i should have read the document again myself, sorry). anyway, i've lost my chain of thought, and need to go take care of a few chores. ; )

and here i was arguing to myself to stay offa this thread, arendt. go figure.

edited a bit, but i did also want to include one of the many ways she steps on her own brand, i.e. on twitter: 'when i spoke to HS students who asked me what they could do to help climate change, i told them that at least once a week they should take their own cup and bag to starbucks', or srsly close to that.

not to mention, it's already too late to mitigate climate chaos as i type.

my favorite tankies featuring her ridickulosity and cravenness (schadenfreude is me), as they are in her congressional district and are blown away by her hubris and shall we say...reversals...under pressure?

i thought i might find @cordelier's original retweet of that one, but of course i can't. but he and red kahina and friends retweet her 'showing her makeup tips to her staff', etc. given that they all support maduro six ways from sunday, they do tend to call out the DSAs who only pretend to, first nuking maduro's whales, then worry about about T's sanctions hurting the people, and are so against US military intervention unless congress or the UN approves it. (R2P, of course)

she allowed herself to take the credit for amazon announcing it would choose another site; they asked why in the world she'd bought $41 grand worth of supplies for her office from...amazon, and today? beats hell outta me?

Chakravarty, seen here in purple designer hornrims as he prepares the public for @aoc's inevitablle sellout, is the worst kind of overweening millionaire scum. #Scamazonhttps://t.co/MYQBqz2UMV

@Big Al
Can't remember where I read some criticism of the Green New Deal, but the fine print of it created committees, oversight, all appointed, with real power, and by the time I read the article, I thought of the Green New Deal as implementing fascism. I have slept since then.
But I urge everyone to think through that proposed legislation carefully before supporting it. Read it, line by line, which I freely admit I have not done.
I am thinking AOC is a star of a staged production.

hammer on. She is basically an actress chosen and assigned to promote the ideals and opinions of those behind her election. It's one of the five primary goals of the New Green Deal.

E) to promote justice and equity by stopping current, preventing future, and repairing historic oppression of indigenous peoples, communities of color, migrant communities, deindustrialized communities, depopulated rural communities, the poor, low-income workers, women, the elderly, the unhoused, people with disabilities, and youth (referred to in this resolution as “frontline and vulnerable communities”);

It appears they've decided to use this approach to support that goal and ideology. Just like she didn't have anything to do with the New Green Deal proposal, what she's saying here is well coached and rehearsed with her handlers.

i stuck my two cents in about it all in 'green capitalism aglow', and brought in other author's opinions on the 'deal', as well.

i can't remember if i'd arrrgghed about the high comedy and cost of this proposal or not, but i just grabbed this tweet referencing it from the justice democrats twitter account.

@justicedems Mar 10
"We're talking about upgrading every mode of transportation, every building, every home to get to clean and renewable energy. That is a massive undertaking. There's so much work we have to do." -@alexandrasiera talking about a just transition toward a Green New Deal

now remember: 'renewble' doesn't mean sustainable or healthy for the planet.

#6 Can't remember where I read some criticism of the Green New Deal, but the fine print of it created committees, oversight, all appointed, with real power, and by the time I read the article, I thought of the Green New Deal as implementing fascism. I have slept since then.
But I urge everyone to think through that proposed legislation carefully before supporting it. Read it, line by line, which I freely admit I have not done.
I am thinking AOC is a star of a staged production.

I am constantly irritated by the lack of detailed thinking about the environmental and logistical consequences of renewables. You want to build a zillion windmills? How much niobium does that require for the magnets? How is it mined? Lots of it comes from Chinese wildcat mines that are toxic waste dumps. Tantalum for all the capacitors? Most of that comes from “boutique mines” in the Congo. And how much land area? Oh, you need to cover all of Wales to power the UK? What does wales think about that? Then there’s all the cement for the bases and the CO2 that produces.

There are 7 billion people on this planet, many of whom have little access to power. Population is only 2% of emissions variance so either these people live in squalor for another hundred years or ... I have no clue.

i stuck my two cents in about it all in 'green capitalism aglow', and brought in other author's opinions on the 'deal', as well.

i can't remember if i'd arrrgghed about the high comedy and cost of this proposal or not, but i just grabbed this tweet referencing it from the justice democrats twitter account.

@justicedems Mar 10
"We're talking about upgrading every mode of transportation, every building, every home to get to clean and renewable energy. That is a massive undertaking. There's so much work we have to do." -@alexandrasiera talking about a just transition toward a Green New Deal

now remember: 'renewble' doesn't mean sustainable or healthy for the planet.

up

4 users have voted.

—

We can’t save the world by playing by the rules, because the rules have to be changed.
- Greta Thunberg

I am constantly irritated by the lack of detailed thinking about the environmental and logistical consequences of renewables. You want to build a zillion windmills? How much niobium does that require for the magnets? How is it mined? Lots of it comes from Chinese wildcat mines that are toxic waste dumps. Tantalum for all the capacitors? Most of that comes from “boutique mines” in the Congo. And how much land area? Oh, you need to cover all of Wales to power the UK? What does wales think about that? Then there’s all the cement for the bases and the CO2 that produces.

There are 7 billion people on this planet, many of whom have little access to power. Population is only 2% of emissions variance so either these people live in squalor for another hundred years or ... I have no clue.

@arendt
to just about every solution. It's a matter of weighing the overall benefits v the extent of the downside and comparing to what it seeks to replace.

Hawkfish and arendt, your solution was what?

As to the corporate party line supposedly favoring a tech solution, the implied suggestion is that seeking a solution involving tech/high tech makes us suspect. I have a strong sense there is going to be some significant tech element to whatever solution we arrive at, and I don't think we can afford to suddenly go Luddite just because evil corporate forces also are thinking high tech.

So I don't care if it's Exxon that makes the dramatic tech breakthrough that ultimately saves the planet. Mind you, I would prefer it be some lefty green guy engineering genius working in his garage on a shoestring budget, but I don't think that's likely, and at this late date, we can't afford to be playing silly purist games.

I'm sorry that there's no perfect substitute energy source, and I agree that deeper, more systemic change based on a great deal of solid and specific facts needs to occur. But nothing will occur if the entire system collapses because of carbon poisoning.

Most optimistically stated, we are in a triage situation. If someone is bleeding out from a gut wound it's not the time to address the fact that they have non-Hodgkins lymphoma.

I am constantly irritated by the lack of detailed thinking about the environmental and logistical consequences of renewables. You want to build a zillion windmills? How much niobium does that require for the magnets? How is it mined? Lots of it comes from Chinese wildcat mines that are toxic waste dumps. Tantalum for all the capacitors? Most of that comes from “boutique mines” in the Congo. And how much land area? Oh, you need to cover all of Wales to power the UK? What does wales think about that? Then there’s all the cement for the bases and the CO2 that produces.

There are 7 billion people on this planet, many of whom have little access to power. Population is only 2% of emissions variance so either these people live in squalor for another hundred years or ... I have no clue.

We are truly fucked.

up

3 users have voted.

—

The issue is patriotism. You've got to get back to your planet and stop the Commies. All it takes is a few good men.
--Q

I am constantly irritated by the lack of detailed thinking about the environmental and logistical consequences of renewables. You want to build a zillion windmills? How much niobium does that require for the magnets? How is it mined? Lots of it comes from Chinese wildcat mines that are toxic waste dumps. Tantalum for all the capacitors? Most of that comes from “boutique mines” in the Congo. And how much land area? Oh, you need to cover all of Wales to power the UK? What does wales think about that? Then there’s all the cement for the bases and the CO2 that produces.

There are 7 billion people on this planet, many of whom have little access to power. Population is only 2% of emissions variance so either these people live in squalor for another hundred years or ... I have no clue.

We are truly fucked.

up

2 users have voted.

—

The issue is patriotism. You've got to get back to your planet and stop the Commies. All it takes is a few good men.
--Q

critiquing this diary at other sites, that's why africom came into being, to create chaos (bu special ops and CIA), then save subsaharan african nations from the same, the install puppet leaders to act as capitalist compradors. it seem that there's a whole new concept (subtle sounding) i'd read about on twitter to that effect.

wish i could remember the term, but brain like a seive is me. but good on ya, amigo/amiga, ad thanks.

I am constantly irritated by the lack of detailed thinking about the environmental and logistical consequences of renewables. You want to build a zillion windmills? How much niobium does that require for the magnets? How is it mined? Lots of it comes from Chinese wildcat mines that are toxic waste dumps. Tantalum for all the capacitors? Most of that comes from “boutique mines” in the Congo. And how much land area? Oh, you need to cover all of Wales to power the UK? What does wales think about that? Then there’s all the cement for the bases and the CO2 that produces.

There are 7 billion people on this planet, many of whom have little access to power. Population is only 2% of emissions variance so either these people live in squalor for another hundred years or ... I have no clue.

...if there's anything I've learned in the process of working, professionally (doing media/advertising, and press management), on 25+ political campaigns (from a sitting president, to federal and statewide races, to city council elections, and issues efforts), it's that your clients are just typical folks, albeit with much-larger-than-normal egos. And, in AOC's case--all the publicity aside--she's just a babe (no gender connotation here, merely referencing age) in the woods, to boot! (Just about everyone does stupid sh*t in their 20's.) She's going to make a LOT of mistakes. AOC has a sh*t-ton of things to learn, yet. For instance, "New York Democrats Could Eliminate Ocasio-Cortez's District After 2020." On the other hand, here's Cory Doctorow, from about a month ago...

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is preparing for New York's establishment Dems to eliminate her district
Cory Doctorow
Boing Boing
February 9th, 2019

After the 2020 census, the nation's electoral districts will be redrawn and it's a widely accepted fact that New York City will lose a seat, despite its growth since the 2010 census.

Ocasio-Cortez's district is a thoroughly gerrymandered Democratic safe seat, which is why her primary challenge was effectively an early election: whomever holds the Democratic nomination in New York's 14th automatically goes to Congress (which is how her predecessor Joe Crowley was "elected" ten times in a row).

New York's districting is controlled by a powerful, secretive Democratic machine, the kind of Democratic establishment figures whom Ocasio-Cortez has been criticizing, and whose candidates Ocasio-Cortez has been helping to oust through primary challenges, with the threat of more on the horizon for the 2020 elections.

Combine these three facts -- an NYC seat being eliminated, a gerrymandered district, and the burning hatred of the Democratic establishment who control the district boundaries -- and Ocasio-Cortez is right to be worried that her seat will be eliminated in two years.

Even though NY Dems would claim that this is just business as usual and nothing personal, the decision to eliminate Ocasio-Cortez's seat would be intensely personal, and political. She has been a thorn in the side of the establishment since she got on the scene, and her short Congressional career has marked her out as someone who shouts the unutterable truths that no one was willing to mention in polite society, and that the tactic works. Ocasio-Cortez has shown herself to be willing to upend the "natural order" of politics and cost some very powerful people a lot of money, even turning them into pariahs for having accumulated that money in the first place, and she's shown that she has a very good chance of succeeding.

The natural rebuttal is that Ocasio-Cortez's incredible popularity and ability to galvanize public support is an asset that Democrats should welcome -- but the reality is that the Democratic policies Ocasio-Cortez favors (an end to the hydrocarbon industries, clawing back inequality through steeply progressive taxes, ending corruption) are anethema to the Democratic establishment. The power-brokers in the Dems would rather that the Democratic party loses than that it win and do the things that Ocasio-Cortez wants it to do.

So yes, Ocasio-Cortez should be worried about a stab in the back from the Cuomoites and other New York Democratic machine figures. But as Aída Chávez notes on The Intercept: "Ocasio-Cortez could just run, and probably win, in any nearby New York City district the party may try to draw for her." And if that wasn't enough, she could always just primary Chuck Schumer and become a Senator...

@bobswern
to office is the staff, and the party hacks telling you things. Things you "must" have a "position" on even if it's nothing remotely to do with your campaign promises. I have no real idea if she's deliberately setting up to torpedo the left.

I do remember (I'm pretty sure https://www.mediaite.com/online/sanders-adviser-suggests-staffer-that-br...) at the start of Bernies first campaign, how the DNC was SOOooo nice to recommend a DNC approved computer guy to Bernie. He was SOOooo smart, and did a wonderful job. He'd love him to death. And what? 8 weeks later top computer guy was caught (must have great security) rifling through the system at the DNC, snooping on other campaigns. Oh, my, how could Bernie do this to them? Obviously HE HAS TO QUIT the RACE!

So, AOC seems pretty smart. I guess we'll see what kind of smart eventually. Have to say on FDR technically she's right. But FDR's programs established the basis for all the social programs we have now. If the republicans had won all aid would have been funneled through religious organizations as charity, along with their shaming and intolerance, and we would still have institutional racism.

...if there's anything I've learned in the process of working, professionally (doing media/advertising, and press management), on 25+ political campaigns (from a sitting president, to federal and statewide races, to city council elections, and issues efforts), it's that your clients are just typical folks, albeit with much-larger-than-normal egos. And, in AOC's case--all the publicity aside--she's just a babe (no gender connotation here, merely referencing age) in the woods, to boot! (Just about everyone does stupid sh*t in their 20's.) She's going to make a LOT of mistakes. AOC has a sh*t-ton of things to learn, yet. For instance, "New York Democrats Could Eliminate Ocasio-Cortez's District After 2020." On the other hand, here's Cory Doctorow, from about a month ago...

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is preparing for New York's establishment Dems to eliminate her district
Cory Doctorow
Boing Boing
February 9th, 2019

After the 2020 census, the nation's electoral districts will be redrawn and it's a widely accepted fact that New York City will lose a seat, despite its growth since the 2010 census.

Ocasio-Cortez's district is a thoroughly gerrymandered Democratic safe seat, which is why her primary challenge was effectively an early election: whomever holds the Democratic nomination in New York's 14th automatically goes to Congress (which is how her predecessor Joe Crowley was "elected" ten times in a row).

New York's districting is controlled by a powerful, secretive Democratic machine, the kind of Democratic establishment figures whom Ocasio-Cortez has been criticizing, and whose candidates Ocasio-Cortez has been helping to oust through primary challenges, with the threat of more on the horizon for the 2020 elections.

Combine these three facts -- an NYC seat being eliminated, a gerrymandered district, and the burning hatred of the Democratic establishment who control the district boundaries -- and Ocasio-Cortez is right to be worried that her seat will be eliminated in two years.

Even though NY Dems would claim that this is just business as usual and nothing personal, the decision to eliminate Ocasio-Cortez's seat would be intensely personal, and political. She has been a thorn in the side of the establishment since she got on the scene, and her short Congressional career has marked her out as someone who shouts the unutterable truths that no one was willing to mention in polite society, and that the tactic works. Ocasio-Cortez has shown herself to be willing to upend the "natural order" of politics and cost some very powerful people a lot of money, even turning them into pariahs for having accumulated that money in the first place, and she's shown that she has a very good chance of succeeding.

The natural rebuttal is that Ocasio-Cortez's incredible popularity and ability to galvanize public support is an asset that Democrats should welcome -- but the reality is that the Democratic policies Ocasio-Cortez favors (an end to the hydrocarbon industries, clawing back inequality through steeply progressive taxes, ending corruption) are anethema to the Democratic establishment. The power-brokers in the Dems would rather that the Democratic party loses than that it win and do the things that Ocasio-Cortez wants it to do.

So yes, Ocasio-Cortez should be worried about a stab in the back from the Cuomoites and other New York Democratic machine figures. But as Aída Chávez notes on The Intercept: "Ocasio-Cortez could just run, and probably win, in any nearby New York City district the party may try to draw for her." And if that wasn't enough, she could always just primary Chuck Schumer and become a Senator...

That's the problem with Google. I misspelled her name, but Google found her for me. I never noticed the correction. Perhaps if she had her own wikipedia entry, with her name in 28-point type, I might have noticed my mistake.

ADDED ON EDIT:
When I use the correct spelling, I do find her Wikipedia page. So google actually did me a disservice. It served me all the pages where her name was misspelled.

The Wikepedia entry is an airbrush job. Zero about her family of origin (one rarely majors in English at Yale unless one is a trust fund baby). Her connection to the Mercer family is only discovered by reading the Jane Mayer article in Footnote #3. There is no subheading for "criticsm", as in the Rational Wiki article in my OP, which quotes prominent economists and historians trashing her "research".

...if there's anything I've learned in the process of working, professionally (doing media/advertising, and press management), on 25+ political campaigns (from a sitting president, to federal and statewide races, to city council elections, and issues efforts), it's that your clients are just typical folks, albeit with much-larger-than-normal egos. And, in AOC's case--all the publicity aside--she's just a babe (no gender connotation here, merely referencing age) in the woods, to boot! (Just about everyone does stupid sh*t in their 20's.) She's going to make a LOT of mistakes. AOC has a sh*t-ton of things to learn, yet. For instance, "New York Democrats Could Eliminate Ocasio-Cortez's District After 2020." On the other hand, here's Cory Doctorow, from about a month ago...

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is preparing for New York's establishment Dems to eliminate her district
Cory Doctorow
Boing Boing
February 9th, 2019

After the 2020 census, the nation's electoral districts will be redrawn and it's a widely accepted fact that New York City will lose a seat, despite its growth since the 2010 census.

Ocasio-Cortez's district is a thoroughly gerrymandered Democratic safe seat, which is why her primary challenge was effectively an early election: whomever holds the Democratic nomination in New York's 14th automatically goes to Congress (which is how her predecessor Joe Crowley was "elected" ten times in a row).

New York's districting is controlled by a powerful, secretive Democratic machine, the kind of Democratic establishment figures whom Ocasio-Cortez has been criticizing, and whose candidates Ocasio-Cortez has been helping to oust through primary challenges, with the threat of more on the horizon for the 2020 elections.

Combine these three facts -- an NYC seat being eliminated, a gerrymandered district, and the burning hatred of the Democratic establishment who control the district boundaries -- and Ocasio-Cortez is right to be worried that her seat will be eliminated in two years.

Even though NY Dems would claim that this is just business as usual and nothing personal, the decision to eliminate Ocasio-Cortez's seat would be intensely personal, and political. She has been a thorn in the side of the establishment since she got on the scene, and her short Congressional career has marked her out as someone who shouts the unutterable truths that no one was willing to mention in polite society, and that the tactic works. Ocasio-Cortez has shown herself to be willing to upend the "natural order" of politics and cost some very powerful people a lot of money, even turning them into pariahs for having accumulated that money in the first place, and she's shown that she has a very good chance of succeeding.

The natural rebuttal is that Ocasio-Cortez's incredible popularity and ability to galvanize public support is an asset that Democrats should welcome -- but the reality is that the Democratic policies Ocasio-Cortez favors (an end to the hydrocarbon industries, clawing back inequality through steeply progressive taxes, ending corruption) are anethema to the Democratic establishment. The power-brokers in the Dems would rather that the Democratic party loses than that it win and do the things that Ocasio-Cortez wants it to do.

So yes, Ocasio-Cortez should be worried about a stab in the back from the Cuomoites and other New York Democratic machine figures. But as Aída Chávez notes on The Intercept: "Ocasio-Cortez could just run, and probably win, in any nearby New York City district the party may try to draw for her." And if that wasn't enough, she could always just primary Chuck Schumer and become a Senator...

@arendt
for you arendt. I try to edit mistakes when I see them especially on pieces that go to the editorial page. You'd be surprised how many times I get emails from non-member readers via our Contact Us link that bemoan grammatical errors and taking umbrage with our "editor's" lack of skills. I may not get them all but I try.

I've had a couple of those emails in the past that also contain errors in the body of their email. I took great pleasure in replying back that they should consult their own editor before finding fault in ours. Heh!

That's the problem with Google. I misspelled her name, but Google found her for me. I never noticed the correction. Perhaps if she had her own wikipedia entry, with her name in 28-point type, I might have noticed my mistake.

ADDED ON EDIT:
When I use the correct spelling, I do find her Wikipedia page. So google actually did me a disservice. It served me all the pages where her name was misspelled.

The Wikepedia entry is an airbrush job. Zero about her family of origin (one rarely majors in English at Yale unless one is a trust fund baby). Her connection to the Mercer family is only discovered by reading the Jane Mayer article in Footnote #3. There is no subheading for "criticsm", as in the Rational Wiki article in my OP, which quotes prominent economists and historians trashing her "research".

but her name is so bizarre I had no way to judge if it was correct, and no incentive to dig deeper either (what a brazen reactionary liar she is).

Timewasting rambling:

In my experience, strange first names are usually associated with families of wealth or with religious conviction. In the case of wealth, the first name is often the last name of another branch of the family. In the case of religion, it varies. The Quakers have names like Resolve, Delight, etc.

#7.1.2
for you arendt. I try to edit mistakes when I see them especially on pieces that go to the editorial page. You'd be surprised how many times I get emails from non-member readers via our Contact Us link that bemoan grammatical errors and taking umbrage with our "editor's" lack of skills. I may not get them all but I try.

I've had a couple of those emails in the past that also contain errors in the body of their email. I took great pleasure in replying back that they should consult their own editor before finding fault in ours. Heh!

but her name is so bizarre I had no way to judge if it was correct, and no incentive to dig deeper either (what a brazen reactionary liar she is).

Timewasting rambling:

In my experience, strange first names are usually associated with families of wealth or with religious conviction. In the case of wealth, the first name is often the last name of another branch of the family. In the case of religion, it varies. The Quakers have names like Resolve, Delight, etc.

I've had a couple of those emails in the past that also contain errors in the body of their email. I took great pleasure in replying back that they should consult their own editor before finding fault in ours. Heh!

#7.1.2
for you arendt. I try to edit mistakes when I see them especially on pieces that go to the editorial page. You'd be surprised how many times I get emails from non-member readers via our Contact Us link that bemoan grammatical errors and taking umbrage with our "editor's" lack of skills. I may not get them all but I try.

I've had a couple of those emails in the past that also contain errors in the body of their email. I took great pleasure in replying back that they should consult their own editor before finding fault in ours. Heh!

up

4 users have voted.

—

If we surrendered to earth's intelligence we could rise up rooted, like trees
~ Rainer Maria Rilke

...rather than posting a P.S. at the end of my comment; but, I was doing a quick read, and really didn't have much time (after already spending some significant time on the comment, itself), in the middle of a work day. In fact, if the name wasn't in the headline, I probably wouldn't have commented, at all; because I publish (uncorrected) typos all the time!

That's the problem with Google. I misspelled her name, but Google found her for me. I never noticed the correction. Perhaps if she had her own wikipedia entry, with her name in 28-point type, I might have noticed my mistake.

ADDED ON EDIT:
When I use the correct spelling, I do find her Wikipedia page. So google actually did me a disservice. It served me all the pages where her name was misspelled.

The Wikepedia entry is an airbrush job. Zero about her family of origin (one rarely majors in English at Yale unless one is a trust fund baby). Her connection to the Mercer family is only discovered by reading the Jane Mayer article in Footnote #3. There is no subheading for "criticsm", as in the Rational Wiki article in my OP, which quotes prominent economists and historians trashing her "research".

...rather than posting a P.S. at the end of my comment; but, I was doing a quick read, and really didn't have much time (after already spending some significant time on the comment, itself), in the middle of a work day. In fact, if the name wasn't in the headline, I probably wouldn't have commented, at all; because I publish (uncorrected) typos all the time!

You'd run into people who would tear down FDR, and in many cases on race. Apparently on the "tear down any building over two stories tall, and the remaining one story building will tower above" principle.

Don't have the links/numbers handy (they were at Wikipedia) but FDR got something like 16% of the black vote in his first run, and 77% in his second. And about the same or better the next two times. So we're left with either that masses of African-Americans saw FDR as helping them out, or an alternative "explanation" that would be racist in the extreme.

Sort of like all the people who came to America thinking it would be a great place for the little guy, filled with rights, freedom and opportunity, fair and glorious. All those immigrants were also stupid chumps.

In fact, anybody who ever believed something good could happen here was a stupid chump. Not like us.

You'd run into people who would tear down FDR, and in many cases on race. Apparently on the "tear down any building over two stories tall, and the remaining one story building will tower above" principle.

Don't have the links/numbers handy (they were at Wikipedia) but FDR got something like 16% of the black vote in his first run, and 77% in his second. And about the same or better the next two times. So we're left with either that masses of African-Americans saw FDR as helping them out, or an alternative "explanation" that would be racist in the extreme.

up

2 users have voted.

—

The issue is patriotism. You've got to get back to your planet and stop the Commies. All it takes is a few good men.
--Q

Tho' it should be said that the SAME rhetorical defense of FDR that "FDR and the New Deal had to tread softly because much of America was not ready for racial integration" can also be used to defend Ocasio-Cortez -- that Ocasio-Cortez needs to "tread softly" when it comes to proposing the replacement of capitalism with something better because America isn't really ready for anything better than the sort of Green New Deal that she's proposed so far.

up

6 users have voted.

—

"Can't you see/ It all makes perfect sense/ Expressed in dollars and cents/ pounds, shillings, and pence" -- Roger Waters

I recognize that you are playing devil's advocate; but thanks for the opportunity to rebut the argument...

To compare her half-baked concepts (hardly laws or regulations) to the massive organized effort over decades to get civil rights and equal protection for blacks is an huge overreach.

The comparison simply isn't there. Nobody is saying environmentalists have to use "separate but equal" facilities. Nobody is lynching environmentalists for Sunday entertainment. Environmentalism is mainstream. The EPA was created by Richard Nixon.

When FDR was the president, racism was literally the law of the land; and the Southern Dems defended it violently (see Strom Thurmond). FDR truly did have to "tread softly" because a lot was riding on his success. OTOH, AOC is a nobody, a freshman congressperson. She has only the power the media gives her. Hers is but one of many GND proposals. Nothing but her career and the goals of the people funding her media machine will be hurt if this astroturfed GND fails. There is no reason for her to "tread softly", and she certainly is not doing so with her grandstanding. So, again, the comparison is a joke.

Tho' it should be said that the SAME rhetorical defense of FDR that "FDR and the New Deal had to tread softly because much of America was not ready for racial integration" can also be used to defend Ocasio-Cortez -- that Ocasio-Cortez needs to "tread softly" when it comes to proposing the replacement of capitalism with something better because America isn't really ready for anything better than the sort of Green New Deal that she's proposed so far.

If we're going to argue that Roosevelt's New Deal programs, insufficient in themselves to end the Great Depression, were the best they could do given their circumstances, then the defenders of Ocasio-Cortez are also going to argue that her concept of a "Green New Deal" is the best she can do at this time. Which might be pathetically little, especially as concerns the most necessary step (abolishing for-profit oil production), but it's still the same argument as the one we're using to defend FDR.

Nobody here is promoting the idea Ocasio-Cortez' version of the Green New Deal is equal to the New Deal of FDR. 'kay?

I recognize that you are playing devil's advocate; but thanks for the opportunity to rebut the argument...

To compare her half-baked concepts (hardly laws or regulations) to the massive organized effort over decades to get civil rights and equal protection for blacks is an huge overreach.

The comparison simply isn't there. Nobody is saying environmentalists have to use "separate but equal" facilities. Nobody is lynching environmentalists for Sunday entertainment. Environmentalism is mainstream. The EPA was created by Richard Nixon.

When FDR was the president, racism was literally the law of the land; and the Southern Dems defended it violently (see Strom Thurmond). FDR truly did have to "tread softly" because a lot was riding on his success. OTOH, AOC is a nobody, a freshman congressperson. She has only the power the media gives her. Hers is but one of many GND proposals. Nothing but her career and the goals of the people funding her media machine will be hurt if this astroturfed GND fails. There is no reason for her to "tread softly", and she certainly is not doing so with her grandstanding. So, again, the comparison is a joke.

up

2 users have voted.

—

"Can't you see/ It all makes perfect sense/ Expressed in dollars and cents/ pounds, shillings, and pence" -- Roger Waters

I thought we were discussing "was the New Deal racist". All of the sudden you bring up whether it was effective.

If we're going to argue that Roosevelt's New Deal programs, insufficient in themselves to end the Great Depression,

Yes, the programs were insufficient, but that is a new topic.

I don't want to get bogged down in nitpicking. And I do not want to discuss FDR's deal at all, because the corporate-friendly ideas AOC is pushing do not deserve to be on the same footing as the real New Deal.

If we're going to argue that Roosevelt's New Deal programs, insufficient in themselves to end the Great Depression, were the best they could do given their circumstances, then the defenders of Ocasio-Cortez are also going to argue that her concept of a "Green New Deal" is the best she can do at this time. Which might be pathetically little, especially as concerns the most necessary step (abolishing for-profit oil production), but it's still the same argument as the one we're using to defend FDR.

Nobody here is promoting the idea Ocasio-Cortez' version of the Green New Deal is equal to the New Deal of FDR. 'kay?

on someone else's opinion as this OP does, perhaps we might look at the actual interview and draw our own conclusions.

Here is the article from the Intercept that includes a link to the interview. I find that it differs quite a bit from the Mail's characterization. It's too bad that I find the lack of a transcript so frustrating. Happens so often.

I believe the excerpt that is in question here occurs around the 20 minute mark.

BTW, I found the Mail's article to be pretty much garbage. Eg:

"Ocasio-Cortez's Green New Deal proposal calls for giving every resident of the United States a federal job with paid vacation and retirement benefits, 'adequate housing,' 'healthy food,' and 'access to nature.'

It also seeks to make air travel unnecessary and provide jobs for those 'unwilling to work.' It does acknowledge, however, that getting rid of 'farting cows and airplanes' will be difficult. One study suggested the proposal could cost up to $94 trillion."

At this point in any discussion of a change in the status quo we will have a tremendous pushback from the establishment and very slanted reporting in order to divide us, distract us, marginalize anyone proposing changes, etc.

and I rarely listen to interviews. I just don't have the time. So, while I recognize that the Daily Mail is a rightwing tabloid, it was the best thing that Google served me. I do not endorse anything else in the article. I agree the article is garbage. I just wanted an exact quote.

Furthermore, in this age of soundbites, it is the quote that will be endlessly replayed, not the entire interview. One might claim that she is being taken out of context; but this is part of a pattern (see the "reverse ace" list in the OP).

At this point in any discussion of a change in the status quo we will have a tremendous pushback from the establishment and very slanted reporting in order to divide us, distract us, marginalize anyone proposing changes, etc.

IMHO, AOC and the massive media push behind her are part of the establishment pushback. Do you see any other progressive candidate's environmental proposals getting any airtime? No. AOC is sucking the oxygen out of the room; and that's what the corporate media wants.

I'm not going to get into the details of a proposal that was literally done by some staffers over the weekend. From the headlines its getting, it is flawed and detrimental to a genuine environmental proposal.

on someone else's opinion as this OP does, perhaps we might look at the actual interview and draw our own conclusions.

Here is the article from the Intercept that includes a link to the interview. I find that it differs quite a bit from the Mail's characterization. It's too bad that I find the lack of a transcript so frustrating. Happens so often.

I believe the excerpt that is in question here occurs around the 20 minute mark.

BTW, I found the Mail's article to be pretty much garbage. Eg:

"Ocasio-Cortez's Green New Deal proposal calls for giving every resident of the United States a federal job with paid vacation and retirement benefits, 'adequate housing,' 'healthy food,' and 'access to nature.'

It also seeks to make air travel unnecessary and provide jobs for those 'unwilling to work.' It does acknowledge, however, that getting rid of 'farting cows and airplanes' will be difficult. One study suggested the proposal could cost up to $94 trillion."

At this point in any discussion of a change in the status quo we will have a tremendous pushback from the establishment and very slanted reporting in order to divide us, distract us, marginalize anyone proposing changes, etc.

in the sense that many of its benefits were not extended to black and brown people. What that actually means is that the New Deal should have been extended to black and brown people as well. Not only would that have been the right thing to do, it would have made the New Deal work better. Keynesianism, however much socialists don't like it, has the virtue of working better the more people it includes. Which is probably the reason defenders of the current system hate it.

I have run into this smear before. On Twitter. It's on my list of "crazy reasons to be called racist."

Me: "Barack Obama wants to cut social security. He even said his ideas about Social Security are the same as Mitt Romney's."

Them: "Social Security was racist. When it started, it didn't include black people."

Me: "Yeah, it was racist. When my grandmother was twelve. Now, it's the primary source of support for elderly women of color, who depend on it more than anyone else."

Them: .....

Me: "So really, if you want to cut or abolish Social Security, it's like you're punching somebody's black grandma in the face."

Them: .....

up

13 users have voted.

—

The issue is patriotism. You've got to get back to your planet and stop the Commies. All it takes is a few good men.
--Q

I know the New Deal was designed and implemented with preferential treatment for white people, but what wasn't in America? The New Deal was no more racist than America at the time, the American Military, Local and State Governments.

To call it a "racist deal" is to completely miss the point and to sully the idea of government doing New Deal type things for ALL Americans... And there it is... the dog whistle, amirite or what?

up

6 users have voted.

—

The issue is patriotism. You've got to get back to your planet and stop the Commies. All it takes is a few good men.
--Q

How is the political issue of climate change any less a "unreconcilable social problem" than the other problems you cite?

Of course, climate change is a scientific fact. But it's necessary to politicize it to come up with effective solutions that are necessarily political and scientific.

Are these problems really "unreconcilable"? Should we just give up regarding racial and other social injustices?

Finally, while it's fair to parse AOC's ideology and practices, I worry that being "too" critical or "incessantly" critical of her plays into the same kind of problem you recognize in terms of her giving the right ammunition to use against the left when she takes shots at the New Deal.

It's difficult for me to determine where the lines of "too" and "incesantly" need to be drawn, but I think it's something that needs to be considered before we dump that purported "babe in the woods" out with the bathwater.

If it sounds too good to be true and has no track record to support a GD thing, aka Obama, watch it close.

“I guess the lesson is we shouldn’t be fooled by good-looking liberals no matter how well-spoken they are,” Fonda said about Trudeau. Applies to Obama and maybe AOC.

How is the political issue of climate change any less a "unreconcilable social problem" than the other problems you cite?

Of course, climate change is a scientific fact. But it's necessary to politicize it to come up with effective solutions that are necessarily political and scientific.

Are these problems really "unreconcilable"? Should we just give up regarding racial and other social injustices?

Finally, while it's fair to parse AOC's ideology and practices, I worry that being "too" critical or "incessantly" critical of her plays into the same kind of problem you recognize in terms of her giving the right ammunition to use against the left when she takes shots at the New Deal.

It's difficult for me to determine where the lines of "too" and "incesantly" need to be drawn, but I think it's something that needs to be considered before we dump that purported "babe in the woods" out with the bathwater.

I certainly recognize the validity of some of the criticisms being made of her.

I am especially sensitive to the importance of class as a unifying force and problems posed by identity politics.

But I'm also turned off by "nattering nabobs of negativism" as well at this point. It's all a matter of where to draw the line and I still don't have a firm handle on it yet. "Eyes wide open" is good advice. So is "For every action, there's an opposite reaction."

Then, too, as much as I'm a Bernie booster, I can understand if AOC opts out of endorsing Bernie prior to the NYS primary. The powers that be may well be ready to stick it to her by running and funding an establishment shill candidate against her if she supports Bernie. They may even go all out, as indicated above in a comment, by gerrymandering her out of her district. Politics is freaking messy and downright dirty. Bernie has even asked supporters to cut her some slack re. an endorsement (how much slack he hasn't indicated yet), so my guess is she's pressed between a rock and a hard place.

How is the political issue of climate change any less a "unreconcilable social problem" than the other problems you cite?

Of course, climate change is a scientific fact. But it's necessary to politicize it to come up with effective solutions that are necessarily political and scientific.

First of all, climate change is a matter of hard numbers. PPM of CO2, extent of arctic ice cover, glacial retreat rate. We can't even win against the fake science of the fossil fuel industry with hard numbers, with pictures of starving polar bears. Basically, the politics is already there. Too bad the politics is stopping an honest discussion of climate change.

But to introduce completely unscientific values into this debate will just make it easier for the corporatists to blow off the whole issue. Race is not even a scientific fact, much less something that needs to be part of a debate about how fast ALL of humanity is being screwed. Race is one of the divisive IdPol issues that always fractures things instead of reaching for a consensus. It is us-against-them politics when climate change needs to be about "we are all in this together".

Are these problems really "unreconcilable"? Should we just give up regarding racial and other social injustices?

The IdPol approach literally rejects reconciliation. They demand reparations. They demand special treatment. We have had 30 years of IdPol politics, and that has destroyed the left in this country. IMHO, IdPol is yet another establishment tactic, like Cointelpro - get the proles fighting with each other.

What we need to give up on is the IdPol approach to social injustice. We need to follow the economic/class approach to social justice. We need jobs open to all, not some damn quota system (quotas were Richard Nixon's trick to sabotage the civil rights movement by instigating tokenism and cronyism). Cleaning up polluting power plants and oil infrastructure will automatically do more good for poor people than for other groups, because such dirty facilities are always sited in low-income/minority neighborhoods. And, since its minority neighborhoods where the work needs to be done, the locals would get a preference in hiring without the need for quotas.

Finally, while it's fair to parse AOC's ideology and practices, I worry that being "too" critical or "incessantly" critical of her plays into the same kind of problem you recognize in terms of her giving the right ammunition to use against the left when she takes shots at the New Deal.

It's difficult for me to determine where the lines of "too" and "incesantly" need to be drawn, but I think it's something that needs to be considered before we dump that purported "babe in the woods" out with the bathwater.
up

Sorry. In nine months it is quite clear who AOC is. Please review my "reverse ace" points. There are other I could add, like voting for Pelosi to be Speaker. But, this "give her more time" is the same tactic that TPTB always use to protect their assets. First they complain that its too early to judge; then later, they say its time to "move on" (TM) and "not look backwards" (TM-Obama).

How is the political issue of climate change any less a "unreconcilable social problem" than the other problems you cite?

Of course, climate change is a scientific fact. But it's necessary to politicize it to come up with effective solutions that are necessarily political and scientific.

Are these problems really "unreconcilable"? Should we just give up regarding racial and other social injustices?

Finally, while it's fair to parse AOC's ideology and practices, I worry that being "too" critical or "incessantly" critical of her plays into the same kind of problem you recognize in terms of her giving the right ammunition to use against the left when she takes shots at the New Deal.

It's difficult for me to determine where the lines of "too" and "incesantly" need to be drawn, but I think it's something that needs to be considered before we dump that purported "babe in the woods" out with the bathwater.

@arendt
Thanks for your thoughtful response. I'm certainly going to give it my consideration. I agree with many of your points, not so much others, and have some difficulty following some of your your logic at times (which may be my problem). Finally, at least for the time being, I'm still gonna give AOC the overall benefit of whatever doubts I have. I'm not sure how that will pan out if she doesn't endorse Bernie in due time.

How is the political issue of climate change any less a "unreconcilable social problem" than the other problems you cite?

Of course, climate change is a scientific fact. But it's necessary to politicize it to come up with effective solutions that are necessarily political and scientific.

First of all, climate change is a matter of hard numbers. PPM of CO2, extent of arctic ice cover, glacial retreat rate. We can't even win against the fake science of the fossil fuel industry with hard numbers, with pictures of starving polar bears. Basically, the politics is already there. Too bad the politics is stopping an honest discussion of climate change.

But to introduce completely unscientific values into this debate will just make it easier for the corporatists to blow off the whole issue. Race is not even a scientific fact, much less something that needs to be part of a debate about how fast ALL of humanity is being screwed. Race is one of the divisive IdPol issues that always fractures things instead of reaching for a consensus. It is us-against-them politics when climate change needs to be about "we are all in this together".

Are these problems really "unreconcilable"? Should we just give up regarding racial and other social injustices?

The IdPol approach literally rejects reconciliation. They demand reparations. They demand special treatment. We have had 30 years of IdPol politics, and that has destroyed the left in this country. IMHO, IdPol is yet another establishment tactic, like Cointelpro - get the proles fighting with each other.

What we need to give up on is the IdPol approach to social injustice. We need to follow the economic/class approach to social justice. We need jobs open to all, not some damn quota system (quotas were Richard Nixon's trick to sabotage the civil rights movement by instigating tokenism and cronyism). Cleaning up polluting power plants and oil infrastructure will automatically do more good for poor people than for other groups, because such dirty facilities are always sited in low-income/minority neighborhoods. And, since its minority neighborhoods where the work needs to be done, the locals would get a preference in hiring without the need for quotas.

Finally, while it's fair to parse AOC's ideology and practices, I worry that being "too" critical or "incessantly" critical of her plays into the same kind of problem you recognize in terms of her giving the right ammunition to use against the left when she takes shots at the New Deal.

It's difficult for me to determine where the lines of "too" and "incesantly" need to be drawn, but I think it's something that needs to be considered before we dump that purported "babe in the woods" out with the bathwater.
up

Sorry. In nine months it is quite clear who AOC is. Please review my "reverse ace" points. There are other I could add, like voting for Pelosi to be Speaker. But, this "give her more time" is the same tactic that TPTB always use to protect their assets. First they complain that its too early to judge; then later, they say its time to "move on" (TM) and "not look backwards" (TM-Obama).

How is the political issue of climate change any less a "unreconcilable social problem" than the other problems you cite?

Of course, climate change is a scientific fact. But it's necessary to politicize it to come up with effective solutions that are necessarily political and scientific.

First of all, climate change is a matter of hard numbers. PPM of CO2, extent of arctic ice cover, glacial retreat rate. We can't even win against the fake science of the fossil fuel industry with hard numbers, with pictures of starving polar bears. Basically, the politics is already there. Too bad the politics is stopping an honest discussion of climate change.

But to introduce completely unscientific values into this debate will just make it easier for the corporatists to blow off the whole issue. Race is not even a scientific fact, much less something that needs to be part of a debate about how fast ALL of humanity is being screwed. Race is one of the divisive IdPol issues that always fractures things instead of reaching for a consensus. It is us-against-them politics when climate change needs to be about "we are all in this together".

Are these problems really "unreconcilable"? Should we just give up regarding racial and other social injustices?

The IdPol approach literally rejects reconciliation. They demand reparations. They demand special treatment. We have had 30 years of IdPol politics, and that has destroyed the left in this country. IMHO, IdPol is yet another establishment tactic, like Cointelpro - get the proles fighting with each other.

What we need to give up on is the IdPol approach to social injustice. We need to follow the economic/class approach to social justice. We need jobs open to all, not some damn quota system (quotas were Richard Nixon's trick to sabotage the civil rights movement by instigating tokenism and cronyism). Cleaning up polluting power plants and oil infrastructure will automatically do more good for poor people than for other groups, because such dirty facilities are always sited in low-income/minority neighborhoods. And, since its minority neighborhoods where the work needs to be done, the locals would get a preference in hiring without the need for quotas.

Finally, while it's fair to parse AOC's ideology and practices, I worry that being "too" critical or "incessantly" critical of her plays into the same kind of problem you recognize in terms of her giving the right ammunition to use against the left when she takes shots at the New Deal.

It's difficult for me to determine where the lines of "too" and "incesantly" need to be drawn, but I think it's something that needs to be considered before we dump that purported "babe in the woods" out with the bathwater.
up

Sorry. In nine months it is quite clear who AOC is. Please review my "reverse ace" points. There are other I could add, like voting for Pelosi to be Speaker. But, this "give her more time" is the same tactic that TPTB always use to protect their assets. First they complain that its too early to judge; then later, they say its time to "move on" (TM) and "not look backwards" (TM-Obama).

I confess to being a bit dazzled by her outside-the-box reputation. I'll pay closer attention. It makes perfect sense that if the Dem establishment wants to trick us again with another Obama they are going to have to use a different script.

And, while she might not be 'Lefty' enough for "real progressives"
I'll take whatever shred of liberalism she (and a few other freshmen) offer.
Becuz nobody - Nobody - from the 'Dem Caucus' offers anything resembling a Lefty position on anything.
Give me 130 more AOCs to replace the 130 that won't support BernieCare!

Some interesting comments by arendt, but AOC is young, has only been out there a few months, and I'm not ready to apply the Ivory Soap 99 44/100% progressive purity test to her. I also don't buy the idea that she is some creation of the Establishment in a devious, super-clever ploy to destroy the Left. The Left, what's left of it, has been famous for organic, aggressive infighting for many decades now, even accounting for Cointelpro. And it gives too much credit for cleverness to the Establishment, which usually isn't that clever.

If we substitute some current progressive favorites for AOC, such as Tulsi Gabbard or Bernie Sanders, we can all go through the same harsh scrutiny of their past comments and actions and conjure up similar deep dark conspiracies by TPTB. I used to post at a heavy-handed Dkos spinoff site where my favorable remarks a few yrs ago about TG were met with a chorus of She Met with Modi/Assad! She Has a Homophobic Past!! , meant to suggest she was actually some RWer in disguise. There was no reasoning with them -- they had latched onto their deep dark conspiracy and were determined to run with it.

Recommend that some of you send AOC some thoughtful comments about FDR's New Deal, putting the situation of racism and the need to cobble together a majority of votes with the hand he was dealt into the proper political context of the times. I suspect AOC is well-intended but only partially informed of the actual, deeper history of the New Deal, which would not be uncommon for someone of her young age.

AOC bashes the New Deal for not being Progressive enough, and yet it's her critics that are the purists.

Might want to try a different brand of soap next time.

Some interesting comments by arendt, but AOC is young, has only been out there a few months, and I'm not ready to apply the Ivory Soap 99 44/100% progressive purity test to her. I also don't buy the idea that she is some creation of the Establishment in a devious, super-clever ploy to destroy the Left. The Left, what's left of it, has been famous for organic, aggressive infighting for many decades now, even accounting for Cointelpro. And it gives too much credit for cleverness to the Establishment, which usually isn't that clever.

If we substitute some current progressive favorites for AOC, such as Tulsi Gabbard or Bernie Sanders, we can all go through the same harsh scrutiny of their past comments and actions and conjure up similar deep dark conspiracies by TPTB. I used to post at a heavy-handed Dkos spinoff site where my favorable remarks a few yrs ago about TG were met with a chorus of She Met with Modi/Assad! She Has a Homophobic Past!! , meant to suggest she was actually some RWer in disguise. There was no reasoning with them -- they had latched onto their deep dark conspiracy and were determined to run with it.

Recommend that some of you send AOC some thoughtful comments about FDR's New Deal, putting the situation of racism and the need to cobble together a majority of votes with the hand he was dealt into the proper political context of the times. I suspect AOC is well-intended but only partially informed of the actual, deeper history of the New Deal, which would not be uncommon for someone of her young age.

@Not Henry Kissinger
as her remarks come out in the wash for all to interpret and misinterpret. But I think it's as I suggested, more a matter of her youth and inexperience in steeping herself in the real history of the ND, a/o perhaps getting most of her knowledge of the matter from one or two snarky takes from the IdPol left. And on that latter point, those jaded, revisionist pieces have gotten more attention in recent years than the counter-revisionist ones which (properly imo) put the issues of race vs class and congressional politics and problems of administering a new vast program into perspective. Has she read the well-researched piece by the historian at the SSA from a few years ago? I doubt it.

Iow, at the risk of annoying arendt, I will play the It's Too Early card here for AOC, coupled with Occam, because I think it's the simplest and most likely explanation.

@wokkamile
more a matter of her youth and inexperience in steeping herself in the real history of the ND

And if she is inexperienced, her handlers certainly aren't.

Despite the carefully crafted image, her office isn't actually a Scooby Doo outfit fighting the evil grumpy old man. AOC receives political patronage, media exposure and message development (see Venezuela) that can come only from a sophisticated and well connected political organization.

AOC is an intelligent, adult woman who knows the political score, and I find it, frankly, a bit patronizing to suggest she doesn't actually realize she's a spokesmodel for the 1% con.

#17.1 as her remarks come out in the wash for all to interpret and misinterpret. But I think it's as I suggested, more a matter of her youth and inexperience in steeping herself in the real history of the ND, a/o perhaps getting most of her knowledge of the matter from one or two snarky takes from the IdPol left. And on that latter point, those jaded, revisionist pieces have gotten more attention in recent years than the counter-revisionist ones which (properly imo) put the issues of race vs class and congressional politics and problems of administering a new vast program into perspective. Has she read the well-researched piece by the historian at the SSA from a few years ago? I doubt it.

Iow, at the risk of annoying arendt, I will play the It's Too Early card here for AOC, coupled with Occam, because I think it's the simplest and most likely explanation.

My hat is off to your ability to say catchily in less than ten words what I struggle to say in ten paragraphs.

#17.1.1 more a matter of her youth and inexperience in steeping herself in the real history of the ND

And if she is inexperienced, her handlers certainly aren't.

Despite the carefully crafted image, her office isn't actually a Scooby Doo outfit fighting the evil grumpy old man. AOC receives political patronage, media exposure and message development (see Venezuela) that can come only from a sophisticated and well connected political organization.

AOC is an intelligent, adult woman who knows the political score, and I find it, frankly, a bit patronizing to suggest she doesn't actually realize she's a spokesmodel for the 1% con.

...to all matters re: AOC. One day you're a bartender. Then you run for a House seat and you win. It's a whole new world. I'm giving her at least a year before I pass judgement.

But, yes, given the reality of our mostly-captured, elected officials, I definitely understand your cynicism. Been there. Done that. But, I've also been on the inside (to some degree) looking out. It may sound as if it's somewhat of an oversimplification, but think about your first year in college. It's a whole new world for most. And, yeah, IT IS (almost) THAT SIMPLE. As I noted in another thread at C99P over the past few days, and after working with more than my share of folks running for (and already in) office, they're all just people; however, most have very large egos (or, they wouldn't be where they are now).

...to all matters re: AOC. One day you're a bartender. Then you run for a House seat and you win. It's a whole new world. I'm giving her at least a year before I pass judgement.

But, yes, given the reality of our mostly-captured, elected officials, I definitely understand your cynicism. Been there. Done that. But, I've also been on the inside (to some degree) looking out. It may sound as if it's somewhat of an oversimplification, but think about your first year in college. It's a whole new world for most. And, yeah, IT IS (almost) THAT SIMPLE. As I noted in another thread at C99P over the past few days, and after working with more than my share of folks running for (and already in) office, they're all just people; however, most have very large egos (or, they wouldn't be where they are now).

and hooray! and all in a nutshell; thank you, amigo. i doff my cap to you.

#17.1.1 more a matter of her youth and inexperience in steeping herself in the real history of the ND

And if she is inexperienced, her handlers certainly aren't.

Despite the carefully crafted image, her office isn't actually a Scooby Doo outfit fighting the evil grumpy old man. AOC receives political patronage, media exposure and message development (see Venezuela) that can come only from a sophisticated and well connected political organization.

AOC is an intelligent, adult woman who knows the political score, and I find it, frankly, a bit patronizing to suggest she doesn't actually realize she's a spokesmodel for the 1% con.

i don't have one, but yours i'll honor. and ooof, my favorite tankies on twitter finally got wind of ocasio et.al.'s 'letter to mob boss pompeo', bashing the shite out of maduro, then asking him not to intervene militarily unless congress or the UN mandates it. gawd's blood. when she burst upon the scene, it was shouted from the rootops: "And she has a peace plan!" then swiftly voted aye on the defense of nato law. jeebus, frauds abound.

i don't have one, but yours i'll honor. and ooof, my favorite tankies on twitter finally got wind of ocasio et.al.'s 'letter to mob boss pompeo', bashing the shite out of maduro, then asking him not to intervene militarily unless congress or the UN mandates it. gawd's blood. when she burst upon the scene, it was shouted from the rootops: "And she has a peace plan!" then swiftly voted aye on the defense of nato law. jeebus, frauds abound.

scroll down for the actual factual text of the letter to sec state pompeo, including these bits criminalizing maduro:

"According to the United Nations, at least 3 million Venezuelans have fled the country because of the ongoing economic crisis. We strongly condemn the Maduro government's actions, including repression of Venezuelan civil society, failed economic policy, the killing of unarmed protestors, disregard for the rule of law, the holding of unfair elections, and blocking humanitarian aid from entering the country.

"According to the United Nations, at least 3 million Venezuelans have fled the country because of the ongoing economic crisis."

"The Venezuelan government's own economic mismanagement and misguided economic policies are in large part to blame for the horrific economic crisis that has unfolded in the country. Yet today Venezuelan government officials can claim that the U.S. is waging an economic war and laying groundwork for direct confrontation, which threatens chaos and mass migration from Venezuela that will be felt throughout the region. The sanctions are already hurting ordinary people and contributing to the ongoing outbound migration of hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans, which could also result in a dramatic increase in refugees to the U.S."

fuck all the signatories, but this was the icing on the cake, as far as i'm concerned:

"Further, threats and involvement in Venezuela's domestic affairs by the U.S. are counterproductive as they play into the Venezuelan government's narrative that the opposition is a proxy for the U.S. These actions help shore up Maduro's support base and take attention away from urgent domestic issues."

well, of course, asshat; the evil troika is a proxy for the US: bolton, rubio, and eliott abrams. (if we add guaido, what's a foursome? tee-offf time?)

i'd seen the 'dear colleagues' letter online trying to drum up signatories, but it wasn't clear if all the names on the sidebar had alread signed on or not; seems so.

She praised John McCain, and spanked FDR's New Deal,
so that automatically puts her on the "Real Progressives" $h!t list.

whatevs...

Give me 130 more AOCs.

#17.1.1 more a matter of her youth and inexperience in steeping herself in the real history of the ND

And if she is inexperienced, her handlers certainly aren't.

Despite the carefully crafted image, her office isn't actually a Scooby Doo outfit fighting the evil grumpy old man. AOC receives political patronage, media exposure and message development (see Venezuela) that can come only from a sophisticated and well connected political organization.

AOC is an intelligent, adult woman who knows the political score, and I find it, frankly, a bit patronizing to suggest she doesn't actually realize she's a spokesmodel for the 1% con.

up

1 user has voted.

—

the little things you can do are more valuable than the giant things you can't! - @thanatokephaloides. On Twitter @wink1radio. (-2.1) All about building progressive media.

Some interesting comments by arendt, but AOC is young, has only been out there a few months

Nobody is whining for 0.56% purity. More like they are hurting from one anti-progressive stunt/gaffe/stance after another. Her "purity is more like 20% than 99%.

The disconnect that bothers many here is how the corporate media broadcast her everyword, despite her youth and inexperience. You might argue she is publicized without slander because she draws eyeballs. But that didn't work for Bernie in early 2016 (total blackout, followed by the Bernie Bros slams) and its not working for Tulsi today (constant slams on her visit to Syria). AOC is publicized because TPTB want her to be.

This is the fifth essay I have written about AOC since last June. The trail of evidence is there for anyone not in total denial. She is a corporate creature. Her mission is to hijack the progressive movement and turn it into yet another failed IdPol whinefest.

Some interesting comments by arendt, but AOC is young, has only been out there a few months, and I'm not ready to apply the Ivory Soap 99 44/100% progressive purity test to her. I also don't buy the idea that she is some creation of the Establishment in a devious, super-clever ploy to destroy the Left. The Left, what's left of it, has been famous for organic, aggressive infighting for many decades now, even accounting for Cointelpro. And it gives too much credit for cleverness to the Establishment, which usually isn't that clever.

If we substitute some current progressive favorites for AOC, such as Tulsi Gabbard or Bernie Sanders, we can all go through the same harsh scrutiny of their past comments and actions and conjure up similar deep dark conspiracies by TPTB. I used to post at a heavy-handed Dkos spinoff site where my favorable remarks a few yrs ago about TG were met with a chorus of She Met with Modi/Assad! She Has a Homophobic Past!! , meant to suggest she was actually some RWer in disguise. There was no reasoning with them -- they had latched onto their deep dark conspiracy and were determined to run with it.

Recommend that some of you send AOC some thoughtful comments about FDR's New Deal, putting the situation of racism and the need to cobble together a majority of votes with the hand he was dealt into the proper political context of the times. I suspect AOC is well-intended but only partially informed of the actual, deeper history of the New Deal, which would not be uncommon for someone of her young age.

@arendt
If she really is just a front for the Corporate Powers, wouldn't they have gone all out for her in the local NY mainstream media during her race? It's my understanding (not a NYite, didn't follow her race) that the NY print media largely ignored her. Odd that the media wouldn't have primed the pump a bit.

Another possible reason for her comments occurs to me: She was playing that old game that Dem pols especially like to play, allowing themselves to play from a defensive mode, showing how reasonable and fair-minded and non-party hack and tough they can be by criticizing one of their sainted own. With her harsh comments about St Ronnie's Welfare Queenery, maybe she felt they were a little strong and needed to be balanced with some St Frank bashing.

Hey, it's my speculation, but it still strikes me as a little more likely than the deceptive frontwoman argument. I plan to be in touch with the AOC office in the next few days and will run a few things up the flagpole and see if anyone salutes. Cheers.

Some interesting comments by arendt, but AOC is young, has only been out there a few months

Nobody is whining for 0.56% purity. More like they are hurting from one anti-progressive stunt/gaffe/stance after another. Her "purity is more like 20% than 99%.

The disconnect that bothers many here is how the corporate media broadcast her everyword, despite her youth and inexperience. You might argue she is publicized without slander because she draws eyeballs. But that didn't work for Bernie in early 2016 (total blackout, followed by the Bernie Bros slams) and its not working for Tulsi today (constant slams on her visit to Syria). AOC is publicized because TPTB want her to be.

This is the fifth essay I have written about AOC since last June. The trail of evidence is there for anyone not in total denial. She is a corporate creature. Her mission is to hijack the progressive movement and turn it into yet another failed IdPol whinefest.

If she really is just a front for the Corporate Powers, wouldn't they have gone all out for her in the local NY mainstream media during her race?

How would they spin that? "I'm a socialist with a tiny income, and these corporations have generously decided to fund my campaign with free advertising."

OTOH, name me one other no-name candidate who got to be on Stephen Colbert's show the night before the primary election. That was about as blatant as they dared to get.

They keep trying to pretend that she is independent and feisty when she gets all this free media. Corporations do not give free media to their enemies.

#17.2 If she really is just a front for the Corporate Powers, wouldn't they have gone all out for her in the local NY mainstream media during her race? It's my understanding (not a NYite, didn't follow her race) that the NY print media largely ignored her. Odd that the media wouldn't have primed the pump a bit.

Another possible reason for her comments occurs to me: She was playing that old game that Dem pols especially like to play, allowing themselves to play from a defensive mode, showing how reasonable and fair-minded and non-party hack and tough they can be by criticizing one of their sainted own. With her harsh comments about St Ronnie's Welfare Queenery, maybe she felt they were a little strong and needed to be balanced with some St Frank bashing.

Hey, it's my speculation, but it still strikes me as a little more likely than the deceptive frontwoman argument. I plan to be in touch with the AOC office in the next few days and will run a few things up the flagpole and see if anyone salutes. Cheers.

@arendt
as usual. They would just promote her by pushing the angles of under-30 lefty political neophyte bartender w/shoestring budget trying to unseat a powerful 10-term congressman. Several compelling stories right there.

Agree that the Colbert appearance tends to cut against my argument, but I did specify local print media non-coverage. Would be interesting to see any polling which showed a huge boost for her following that show. But in any case, I doubt if TPTB would want to wait for a last-minute appearance late-night to turn the tide. They would have arranged well ahead of that to help create a tidal wave of goodwill for her, all hands on deck, using all media means at their substantial disposal.

heard about even though they have been in congress for more than a few years. They certainly didn't get the media attention that AOC got and continues to get. Then there's how she was introduced to us. A bartender who ran for congress to beat one of the most powerful members who had been in there for decades. Then I find out that she previously used to intern for some bigwig democrat and some other history. Not the little bartender that came out of nowhere.

So yeah she is someone to watch carefully. I like some of the things she says, but Tulsi and Omar are saying things that take the blinders of what's happening.

Here's Tulsi saying that the CIA armed Al Qaida to overthrow Assad. How many people just learned that last night?

In this rare mainstream interview, @TulsiGabbard discussed what should be one of the biggest scandals of the 21st century (which Colbert has never mentioned on his show):

In its war on Syria, the US armed and trained far-right Salafi-jihadist rebels, empowering al-Qaeda and ISIS pic.twitter.com/6R58nwA9F6

Some interesting comments by arendt, but AOC is young, has only been out there a few months

Nobody is whining for 0.56% purity. More like they are hurting from one anti-progressive stunt/gaffe/stance after another. Her "purity is more like 20% than 99%.

The disconnect that bothers many here is how the corporate media broadcast her everyword, despite her youth and inexperience. You might argue she is publicized without slander because she draws eyeballs. But that didn't work for Bernie in early 2016 (total blackout, followed by the Bernie Bros slams) and its not working for Tulsi today (constant slams on her visit to Syria). AOC is publicized because TPTB want her to be.

This is the fifth essay I have written about AOC since last June. The trail of evidence is there for anyone not in total denial. She is a corporate creature. Her mission is to hijack the progressive movement and turn it into yet another failed IdPol whinefest.

up

4 users have voted.

—

America is a pathetic nation; a fascist state fueled by the greed, malice, and stupidity of her own people.
- strife delivery

@snoopydawg
. . . to say that Assad "gassed his people". He said it at least twice. She skipped over it, but he pressed her. She caved. She also referred to him as a dictator, so she kept to the dem warlord script, but of course got applause for other things. I learned she works with DHS. Yuck.

heard about even though they have been in congress for more than a few years. They certainly didn't get the media attention that AOC got and continues to get. Then there's how she was introduced to us. A bartender who ran for congress to beat one of the most powerful members who had been in there for decades. Then I find out that she previously used to intern for some bigwig democrat and some other history. Not the little bartender that came out of nowhere.

So yeah she is someone to watch carefully. I like some of the things she says, but Tulsi and Omar are saying things that take the blinders of what's happening.

Here's Tulsi saying that the CIA armed Al Qaida to overthrow Assad. How many people just learned that last night?

In this rare mainstream interview, @TulsiGabbard discussed what should be one of the biggest scandals of the 21st century (which Colbert has never mentioned on his show):

In its war on Syria, the US armed and trained far-right Salafi-jihadist rebels, empowering al-Qaeda and ISIS pic.twitter.com/6R58nwA9F6

I saw that she skipped over the Assad gasses his people, but I think if she had said that then people would think that she was an Assad apologists. She will have to choose which battles she wants to win. I have no horses in the race, but anyone who exposes our sins gets a brownie point from me.

#17.2.2
. . . to say that Assad "gassed his people". He said it at least twice. She skipped over it, but he pressed her. She caved. She also referred to him as a dictator, so she kept to the dem warlord script, but of course got applause for other things. I learned she works with DHS. Yuck.

up

5 users have voted.

—

America is a pathetic nation; a fascist state fueled by the greed, malice, and stupidity of her own people.
- strife delivery

heard about even though they have been in congress for more than a few years. They certainly didn't get the media attention that AOC got and continues to get. Then there's how she was introduced to us. A bartender who ran for congress to beat one of the most powerful members who had been in there for decades. Then I find out that she previously used to intern for some bigwig democrat and some other history. Not the little bartender that came out of nowhere.

So yeah she is someone to watch carefully. I like some of the things she says, but Tulsi and Omar are saying things that take the blinders of what's happening.

Here's Tulsi saying that the CIA armed Al Qaida to overthrow Assad. How many people just learned that last night?

In this rare mainstream interview, @TulsiGabbard discussed what should be one of the biggest scandals of the 21st century (which Colbert has never mentioned on his show):

In its war on Syria, the US armed and trained far-right Salafi-jihadist rebels, empowering al-Qaeda and ISIS pic.twitter.com/6R58nwA9F6

As a politician, there really is not much she can accomplish except through agitation. So long as Schumer and Pelosi are in charge (along with senior party leadership), there is no way any of of the "social democratic" policies will be implemented.

I saw clips of AOC on Colbert and The View and she did an great job in explaining social democratic policies. I saw a clip of her on The Daily Show, and Noah tried to slam her with right wing talking points, but did not seem particularly effective. (I don't have a TV so only see clips.)

AOC is what I would call more an "ideological warrior" than an effective lawmaker.

That being said, her bringing in identity politics is not going to be helpful. Her claim about FDR makes it seem that the New Deal was born in a cradle of racism is extremely stupid politics. In fact, just a simple search reveals interpretations that is more class based (without realizing it). There was not a total ban on black people when social security first started--it was more based on job types, and those jobs could from one angle representing the lumpen proletariat. And by the early 1950's all those restrictions were gone. So for some 65 years now , black people have been covered by social security.

IOW, Just because people agree about one thing does not mean we agree about all, or even many things.

I appreciate the point you are making; but this kind of associative reasoning is the road to perdition, if not McCarthyism. Most US people are reasoning challenged enough without playing these kinds of high school debating games.

I feel much the same way about you comparing AOC at the age of 29 and three months into office
to Amity Shlaes.

So what's your game plan? Short game, long game? Ya really think there's the possibility of a long game at this point?

Just watch the empire crumble and do what you can to expedite it?

I very personally experienced the end of the Soviet empire. I really don't think anything similar is going to happen to the US. If anything, I'm anticipating and dreading the exact opposite. Or alternatively, the destruction of the human race and the planet.

So rather than wallow or relish in cynicism, I'm gonna opt to hope and work so that Bernie might at least throw a monkey wrench into the madness.

IOW, Just because people agree about one thing does not mean we agree about all, or even many things.

I appreciate the point you are making; but this kind of associative reasoning is the road to perdition, if not McCarthyism. Most US people are reasoning challenged enough without playing these kinds of high school debating games.

I have several scientist friends who told me about living on sausage and beer, selling their posessions, etc. It was a very rough time.

I very personally experienced the end of the Soviet empire. I really don't think anything similar is going to happen to the US. If anything, I'm anticipating and dreading the exact opposite. Or alternatively, the destruction of the human race and the planet.

If you're Russian, you must be familiar with Dmitri Orlov and his collapse blog. He argues that our crash will be much worse because Russians were much closer to reality, whereas most Americans can't boil water without a microwave. They don't know how to fix things, they don't know how to grow their own food. In case of a mere economic collapse, Orlov predicts absolute chaos. Of course our PTB would rather nuke the planet than admit their economics is nothing but looting.

So what's your game plan? Short game, long game? Ya really think there's the possibility of a long game at this point?

Just watch the empire crumble and do what you can to expedite it?

At this point, all one can do is wait. The political system is a corrupt duopoly. The media is rolling out censorship. Anyone who gets out of line is met with militarized police and jungles that pass for prisons. If you've got an alternative to that, please clue me in.

From where I sit, the US looks like the 1980s Soviet Union. Gerontocratic leadership that won't let go. A "they pretend to pay us, we pretend to work." attitude that is an understandable response to the corporate precarity. An economy that is about to hit the skids (again), only this time there are no buffers, like their were in 2008. This time the crash will have teeth; and the elites will simply let the country burn. They don't care. They've already cashed out.

Its only at that point that there is a chance to act politically. So, until then, I try to educate others about the sneaky way we are currently managed. (We aren't governed. We are managed, like a bunch of chickens in a chicken farm.) Part of that education is to explain to people that TPTB have immense propaganda resources. And creating a fake leader out of thin air is easy to do. Look at all the examples where the US has created a puppet leader in the third world over the last fifty years. They know how to do it. And now they need to do it in the US, because the proles are getting unmanagable. (Bernie really spooked them.)

So, yes, I intend to wait for the empire to collapse, because I do not want to end up in one of our hellhole jails or have my pitiful life savings confiscated for some bullshit charge. But its not passive waiting.

I feel much the same way about you comparing AOC at the age of 29 and three months into office
to Amity Shlaes.

So what's your game plan? Short game, long game? Ya really think there's the possibility of a long game at this point?

Just watch the empire crumble and do what you can to expedite it?

I very personally experienced the end of the Soviet empire. I really don't think anything similar is going to happen to the US. If anything, I'm anticipating and dreading the exact opposite. Or alternatively, the destruction of the human race and the planet.

So rather than wallow or relish in cynicism, I'm gonna opt to hope and work so that Bernie might at least throw a monkey wrench into the madness.

@arendt@arendt
My connection with the Soviet Union was not within it but rather in and vis-a-vis relatives remaining in a satellite then independent state. But rather than dwell on that, my point was primarily to point out that I really can't imagine that kind of econimc crash happening in the US nor even in terms of US economic and political hegemony being effectively challenged beyond our borders. The US will continue to suck the world dry unless there is some political success in monkey wrenching all that greed and corruption. I'm not optimistic that Bernie can pull it off this time around but if he doesn't, I don't see much hope. I just don;t see another window of opportunity within the span of the 2o20's and in that time span or soon thereafter I'll be dead (if we all aren't killed off sooner). My sense is that we should all try to pull together even if it's for the last time in the face of almost certain defeat. Given the dire circumstances confronting us, it just doesn't make sense to me to just wait or even cheer and egg on collapse of the US empire. We're living in a world menaced by nuclear weapons and escalating tensions compounded by the short window we have to avoid the certainty of catastrophic climate change down the road. So it bothers me when I come across quite a few folks on this forum ranking on the very few class conscious representatives who have managed to get elected despite tremendous odds against them including AOC. Only 16 congressmen and women signed on against military action in Venezuela, where our embassy officials have today been withdrawn. AOC was one of those 16, so no matter what she said that maligned the New Deal, I still think there's much decency in her and a lot more than in the 200 plus other reps who seem intent on war or destructive sabotage. It's late, I'm tired but I figured I owed you some kind of response even though at this point it seems I'm just repeating myself and rambling.

I have several scientist friends who told me about living on sausage and beer, selling their posessions, etc. It was a very rough time.

I very personally experienced the end of the Soviet empire. I really don't think anything similar is going to happen to the US. If anything, I'm anticipating and dreading the exact opposite. Or alternatively, the destruction of the human race and the planet.

If you're Russian, you must be familiar with Dmitri Orlov and his collapse blog. He argues that our crash will be much worse because Russians were much closer to reality, whereas most Americans can't boil water without a microwave. They don't know how to fix things, they don't know how to grow their own food. In case of a mere economic collapse, Orlov predicts absolute chaos. Of course our PTB would rather nuke the planet than admit their economics is nothing but looting.

So what's your game plan? Short game, long game? Ya really think there's the possibility of a long game at this point?

Just watch the empire crumble and do what you can to expedite it?

At this point, all one can do is wait. The political system is a corrupt duopoly. The media is rolling out censorship. Anyone who gets out of line is met with militarized police and jungles that pass for prisons. If you've got an alternative to that, please clue me in.

From where I sit, the US looks like the 1980s Soviet Union. Gerontocratic leadership that won't let go. A "they pretend to pay us, we pretend to work." attitude that is an understandable response to the corporate precarity. An economy that is about to hit the skids (again), only this time there are no buffers, like their were in 2008. This time the crash will have teeth; and the elites will simply let the country burn. They don't care. They've already cashed out.

Its only at that point that there is a chance to act politically. So, until then, I try to educate others about the sneaky way we are currently managed. (We aren't governed. We are managed, like a bunch of chickens in a chicken farm.) Part of that education is to explain to people that TPTB have immense propaganda resources. And creating a fake leader out of thin air is easy to do. Look at all the examples where the US has created a puppet leader in the third world over the last fifty years. They know how to do it. And now they need to do it in the US, because the proles are getting unmanagable. (Bernie really spooked them.)

So, yes, I intend to wait for the empire to collapse, because I do not want to end up in one of our hellhole jails or have my pitiful life savings confiscated for some bullshit charge. But its not passive waiting.

@Wally
indeed and they deserve our support. I managed to watch most of her SXSW interview and I saw an intelligent, thoughtful and well-spoken young woman who handled a number of questions well, often in depth, with a minimum of weasely pol-speak. I didn't detect her being "scripted" nor insincere, putting on a fraudulent front, nor was this open forum one of those heavily produced CNN Town Hall affairs where the questions are carefully selected and many politically involved questioners are not identified as such. From what I saw, it was a wide-open Q&A with the public and she handled it like a pro.

Her pointed and well-deserved remarks about Reagan riling up racial tensions in this country for political gain -- which I don't believe have been noted so far in the many posts here -- were remarkable. How many timid Dem pols in recent times have gone after St Ronnie so directly? They are afraid to go there. Major points to AOC for her candor and courage.

We need more of her. The deep dark conspiracy theory being offered in this thread is way off the deep end.

#19.1.1.1.1#19.1.1.1.1 My connection with the Soviet Union was not within it but rather in and vis-a-vis relatives remaining in a satellite then independent state. But rather than dwell on that, my point was primarily to point out that I really can't imagine that kind of econimc crash happening in the US nor even in terms of US economic and political hegemony being effectively challenged beyond our borders. The US will continue to suck the world dry unless there is some political success in monkey wrenching all that greed and corruption. I'm not optimistic that Bernie can pull it off this time around but if he doesn't, I don't see much hope. I just don;t see another window of opportunity within the span of the 2o20's and in that time span or soon thereafter I'll be dead (if we all aren't killed off sooner). My sense is that we should all try to pull together even if it's for the last time in the face of almost certain defeat. Given the dire circumstances confronting us, it just doesn't make sense to me to just wait or even cheer and egg on collapse of the US empire. We're living in a world menaced by nuclear weapons and escalating tensions compounded by the short window we have to avoid the certainty of catastrophic climate change down the road. So it bothers me when I come across quite a few folks on this forum ranking on the very few class conscious representatives who have managed to get elected despite tremendous odds against them including AOC. Only 16 congressmen and women signed on against military action in Venezuela, where our embassy officials have today been withdrawn. AOC was one of those 16, so no matter what she said that maligned the New Deal, I still think there's much decency in her and a lot more than in the 200 plus other reps who seem intent on war or destructive sabotage. It's late, I'm tired but I figured I owed you some kind of response even though at this point it seems I'm just repeating myself and rambling.

I've been following AOC for a number of months and I think the sh!tstorm she raised in the establishment is a wonder to behold. In her short tenure she has us talking about things that were unheard of in this century. She has the audacity to question so many of the sacred cows... Reagan, Obama, Pelosi, the DNC.

Perhaps her motives might be suspect but the result is worth pursuing. The GND has gone nowhere in the last 10 years, M4A was dying on the altar of the ACA, much of it because of the tepid support from the Pelosi crowd. And even now her insistence that no progress can be made unless it has her support.

As long as she is pushing in a very progressive direction I'm all for her. And along the way we might invest in some fainting couches for the conservative crowd (and the DNC struggling to maintain the status quo).

...before the latest episode in America’s ongoing AOC melodrama concludes, it’s worth pausing to consider what it says about a larger problem in our politics. More than anything else — an example of how an emboldened Ocasio-Cortez is willing to criticize a Republican hero whose legacy even Barack Obama was reluctant to challenge; a case study in how conservative media outlets are gleefully demonizing the freshman congresswoman in order to drive traffic — the Reagan flap reveals how the left and the right talk about race today, and why they always seem to be talking past each other.

The difference between the two sides is simple but stark. The left believes policies — and the tactics used to promote them — can be racist. In contrast, the right seems to believe, or to choose to believe, that only people can be racist.

IOW, a progressive who cares about what is going on things of many things in terms of adjectives while the other side thinks more in terms of nouns. My wife has a hard time dealing with the fact that I am a "what" person, not a "who" person. I see the actions first and the actor second.

whenever Democrats use “racist” as an adjective — to describe a policy or a tactic — Republicans choose to hear it as a noun. This miscommunication has big implications for race in America. For AOC, and for the left generally, the whole point is that politicians being literal racists is not the only way race can affect politics. Instead, they say, policies themselves can perpetuate systemic racial inequality regardless of how their proponents feel about people of color. Race can also play into how those policies are promoted....
As if to prove this point, Ocasio-Cortez spoke at SXSW about how, even though “we act as if the New Deal wasn’t racist,” it was in fact “an extremely economically racist policy that drew literal red lines around black and brown communities” and “allowed white Americans to have access to home loans that black and brown Americans did not have access to, giving them the largest form of intergenerational wealth, which is real estate.”...
In the end, acting as if only people can be racist serves to shut down a conversation about racial progress before it’s even begun. Arguing about who is or isn’t a bigot inevitably — perhaps even deliberately — leads nowhere; it’s an easy excuse to mount your high horse, stir anger among supporters who resent being called racists by proxy, and preserve the polarized status quo. Arguing about which policies are racist, on the other hand, is a much more challenging proposition. It also happens to be the only path that can lead to real change.

Conservatives are very literal. Nuance escapes them. And so often the establishment status quo paints these important issues in a way that plays to the literalness. We must be careful not to play into that caricature and start debating the who rather than the what.

It isn't as if the future of the planet and our democracy is at stake.

#19.1.1.1.1.1 indeed and they deserve our support. I managed to watch most of her SXSW interview and I saw an intelligent, thoughtful and well-spoken young woman who handled a number of questions well, often in depth, with a minimum of weasely pol-speak. I didn't detect her being "scripted" nor insincere, putting on a fraudulent front, nor was this open forum one of those heavily produced CNN Town Hall affairs where the questions are carefully selected and many politically involved questioners are not identified as such. From what I saw, it was a wide-open Q&A with the public and she handled it like a pro.

Her pointed and well-deserved remarks about Reagan riling up racial tensions in this country for political gain -- which I don't believe have been noted so far in the many posts here -- were remarkable. How many timid Dem pols in recent times have gone after St Ronnie so directly? They are afraid to go there. Major points to AOC for her candor and courage.

We need more of her. The deep dark conspiracy theory being offered in this thread is way off the deep end.

I've been following AOC for a number of months and I think the sh!tstorm she raised in the establishment is a wonder to behold. In her short tenure she has us talking about things that were unheard of in this century. She has the audacity to question so many of the sacred cows... Reagan, Obama, Pelosi, the DNC.

Perhaps her motives might be suspect but the result is worth pursuing. The GND has gone nowhere in the last 10 years, M4A was dying on the altar of the ACA, much of it because of the tepid support from the Pelosi crowd. And even now her insistence that no progress can be made unless it has her support.

As long as she is pushing in a very progressive direction I'm all for her. And along the way we might invest in some fainting couches for the conservative crowd (and the DNC struggling to maintain the status quo).

...before the latest episode in America’s ongoing AOC melodrama concludes, it’s worth pausing to consider what it says about a larger problem in our politics. More than anything else — an example of how an emboldened Ocasio-Cortez is willing to criticize a Republican hero whose legacy even Barack Obama was reluctant to challenge; a case study in how conservative media outlets are gleefully demonizing the freshman congresswoman in order to drive traffic — the Reagan flap reveals how the left and the right talk about race today, and why they always seem to be talking past each other.

The difference between the two sides is simple but stark. The left believes policies — and the tactics used to promote them — can be racist. In contrast, the right seems to believe, or to choose to believe, that only people can be racist.

IOW, a progressive who cares about what is going on things of many things in terms of adjectives while the other side thinks more in terms of nouns. My wife has a hard time dealing with the fact that I am a "what" person, not a "who" person. I see the actions first and the actor second.

whenever Democrats use “racist” as an adjective — to describe a policy or a tactic — Republicans choose to hear it as a noun. This miscommunication has big implications for race in America. For AOC, and for the left generally, the whole point is that politicians being literal racists is not the only way race can affect politics. Instead, they say, policies themselves can perpetuate systemic racial inequality regardless of how their proponents feel about people of color. Race can also play into how those policies are promoted....
As if to prove this point, Ocasio-Cortez spoke at SXSW about how, even though “we act as if the New Deal wasn’t racist,” it was in fact “an extremely economically racist policy that drew literal red lines around black and brown communities” and “allowed white Americans to have access to home loans that black and brown Americans did not have access to, giving them the largest form of intergenerational wealth, which is real estate.”...
In the end, acting as if only people can be racist serves to shut down a conversation about racial progress before it’s even begun. Arguing about who is or isn’t a bigot inevitably — perhaps even deliberately — leads nowhere; it’s an easy excuse to mount your high horse, stir anger among supporters who resent being called racists by proxy, and preserve the polarized status quo. Arguing about which policies are racist, on the other hand, is a much more challenging proposition. It also happens to be the only path that can lead to real change.

Conservatives are very literal. Nuance escapes them. And so often the establishment status quo paints these important issues in a way that plays to the literalness. We must be careful not to play into that caricature and start debating the who rather than the what.

It isn't as if the future of the planet and our democracy is at stake.

up

0 users have voted.

—

the little things you can do are more valuable than the giant things you can't! - @thanatokephaloides. On Twitter @wink1radio. (-2.1) All about building progressive media.

#19.1.1.1.1.1 indeed and they deserve our support. I managed to watch most of her SXSW interview and I saw an intelligent, thoughtful and well-spoken young woman who handled a number of questions well, often in depth, with a minimum of weasely pol-speak. I didn't detect her being "scripted" nor insincere, putting on a fraudulent front, nor was this open forum one of those heavily produced CNN Town Hall affairs where the questions are carefully selected and many politically involved questioners are not identified as such. From what I saw, it was a wide-open Q&A with the public and she handled it like a pro.

Her pointed and well-deserved remarks about Reagan riling up racial tensions in this country for political gain -- which I don't believe have been noted so far in the many posts here -- were remarkable. How many timid Dem pols in recent times have gone after St Ronnie so directly? They are afraid to go there. Major points to AOC for her candor and courage.

We need more of her. The deep dark conspiracy theory being offered in this thread is way off the deep end.

up

0 users have voted.

—

the little things you can do are more valuable than the giant things you can't! - @thanatokephaloides. On Twitter @wink1radio. (-2.1) All about building progressive media.

It's late, I'm tired but I figured I owed you some kind of response even though at this point it seems I'm just repeating myself and rambling.

Thanks for your lengthy response. I did not find it rambling or repetitive. I appreciate that you stayed up late to make it.

my point was primarily to point out that I really can't imagine that kind of econimc crash happening in the US nor even in terms of US economic and political hegemony being effectively challenged beyond our borders. The US will continue to suck the world dry unless there is some political success in monkey wrenching all that greed and corruption.

I think that Trump's blatant use of secondary economic sanctions (you, Germany, can't do business with Iran because we, the US, say so.) is driving the world to abandon the dollar. The Chinese petro-yuan is heavily cutting into dollar-denominated oil sales. The US posturing and moving troops onto Russian/Chinese borders is incentivizing those countries to cut ties to the dollar.

Bottom line: US economic hegemony is being challenged more each day. The US economy is a hollow shell papered over with financial games. Real work is increasingly viewed as a mugs game. Boeing is a great example. It was merged with McDonnell Douglas, and a Wall St. friendly board was installed. They instantly changed the culture from making planes to making bucks. The result is the 737 MAX8 debacle.

I'm not optimistic that Bernie can pull it off this time around but if he doesn't, I don't see much hope. I just don;t see another window of opportunity within the span of the 2o20's and in that time span or soon thereafter I'll be dead (if we all aren't killed off sooner).

If I thought politics still functioned, I would help Bernie out - volunteer or something. I mean, his message that he can't do it alone, that people need to act directly, is absolutely essential. Of course, TPTB want him offstage. They are pushing the hideous, corrupt Joe Biden. I may throw him $27 just for the discomfort he causes TPTB.

Like you, I will be out of lifespan by 2030; and it is so sad to go out watching a great country being burned to the ground by a pack of sociopathic grifters.

My sense is that we should all try to pull together even if it's for the last time in the face of almost certain defeat. Given the dire circumstances confronting us, it just doesn't make sense to me to just wait or even cheer and egg on collapse of the US empire. We're living in a world menaced by nuclear weapons and escalating tensions compounded by the short window we have to avoid the certainty of catastrophic climate change down the road.

I think its naive to think TPTB will allow us to "pull together". They are masters of sabotage. Think COINTELPRO. They put their agents into organizations, and those agents wreck the solidarity with proposals that divide the organization. Pulling together requires some counter-intelligence. That's what I'm doing with my AOC monitoring.

So it bothers me when I come across quite a few folks on this forum ranking on the very few class conscious representatives who have managed to get elected despite tremendous odds against them including AOC.

I do not get that AOC is "class conscious". My whole point is that she is using IdPol to undermine class consciousness, and to entangle a scientific debate about climate change in a centuries old societal conflict.

Only 16 congressmen and women signed on against military action in Venezuela, where our embassy officials have today been withdrawn. AOC was one of those 16, so no matter what she said that maligned the New Deal, I still think there's much decency in her and a lot more than in the 200 plus other reps who seem intent on war or destructive sabotage.

I haven't validated the following yet, and the source is kindy iffy; but it is consistent with her pattern:

my favorite tankies on twitter finally got wind of ocasio et.al.'s 'letter to mob boss pompeo', bashing the shite out of maduro, then asking him not to intervene militarily unless congress or the UN mandates it. gawd's blood. when she burst upon the scene, it was shouted from the rootops: "And she has a peace plan!" then swiftly voted aye on the defense of nato law. jeebus, frauds abound.

#19.1.1.1.1#19.1.1.1.1 My connection with the Soviet Union was not within it but rather in and vis-a-vis relatives remaining in a satellite then independent state. But rather than dwell on that, my point was primarily to point out that I really can't imagine that kind of econimc crash happening in the US nor even in terms of US economic and political hegemony being effectively challenged beyond our borders. The US will continue to suck the world dry unless there is some political success in monkey wrenching all that greed and corruption. I'm not optimistic that Bernie can pull it off this time around but if he doesn't, I don't see much hope. I just don;t see another window of opportunity within the span of the 2o20's and in that time span or soon thereafter I'll be dead (if we all aren't killed off sooner). My sense is that we should all try to pull together even if it's for the last time in the face of almost certain defeat. Given the dire circumstances confronting us, it just doesn't make sense to me to just wait or even cheer and egg on collapse of the US empire. We're living in a world menaced by nuclear weapons and escalating tensions compounded by the short window we have to avoid the certainty of catastrophic climate change down the road. So it bothers me when I come across quite a few folks on this forum ranking on the very few class conscious representatives who have managed to get elected despite tremendous odds against them including AOC. Only 16 congressmen and women signed on against military action in Venezuela, where our embassy officials have today been withdrawn. AOC was one of those 16, so no matter what she said that maligned the New Deal, I still think there's much decency in her and a lot more than in the 200 plus other reps who seem intent on war or destructive sabotage. It's late, I'm tired but I figured I owed you some kind of response even though at this point it seems I'm just repeating myself and rambling.

Yea, I read that Pompeo letter and there were major problems with it but still . . . we're talking only 16 congressfolk who have even that much chutzpah to say no to unilateral US military intervention. And even Omar signed off on those problematic provisos, too.

Otherwise, I still think the US will manage to suck the world dry before it allows it's hegemony to be effectively threatened, just as you think there's no way imaginable that Bernie can pull it off. And I'm glad that you're at least thinking of throwing $27 towards Bernie for whatever rationale. I hope other like-minded people will do the same. There's something still in me (and there really ain't much left although what's left is left) that still makes me do whatever that will allow me to say at least I tried. Hang in there fellow old kid.

It's late, I'm tired but I figured I owed you some kind of response even though at this point it seems I'm just repeating myself and rambling.

Thanks for your lengthy response. I did not find it rambling or repetitive. I appreciate that you stayed up late to make it.

my point was primarily to point out that I really can't imagine that kind of econimc crash happening in the US nor even in terms of US economic and political hegemony being effectively challenged beyond our borders. The US will continue to suck the world dry unless there is some political success in monkey wrenching all that greed and corruption.

I think that Trump's blatant use of secondary economic sanctions (you, Germany, can't do business with Iran because we, the US, say so.) is driving the world to abandon the dollar. The Chinese petro-yuan is heavily cutting into dollar-denominated oil sales. The US posturing and moving troops onto Russian/Chinese borders is incentivizing those countries to cut ties to the dollar.

Bottom line: US economic hegemony is being challenged more each day. The US economy is a hollow shell papered over with financial games. Real work is increasingly viewed as a mugs game. Boeing is a great example. It was merged with McDonnell Douglas, and a Wall St. friendly board was installed. They instantly changed the culture from making planes to making bucks. The result is the 737 MAX8 debacle.

I'm not optimistic that Bernie can pull it off this time around but if he doesn't, I don't see much hope. I just don;t see another window of opportunity within the span of the 2o20's and in that time span or soon thereafter I'll be dead (if we all aren't killed off sooner).

If I thought politics still functioned, I would help Bernie out - volunteer or something. I mean, his message that he can't do it alone, that people need to act directly, is absolutely essential. Of course, TPTB want him offstage. They are pushing the hideous, corrupt Joe Biden. I may throw him $27 just for the discomfort he causes TPTB.

Like you, I will be out of lifespan by 2030; and it is so sad to go out watching a great country being burned to the ground by a pack of sociopathic grifters.

My sense is that we should all try to pull together even if it's for the last time in the face of almost certain defeat. Given the dire circumstances confronting us, it just doesn't make sense to me to just wait or even cheer and egg on collapse of the US empire. We're living in a world menaced by nuclear weapons and escalating tensions compounded by the short window we have to avoid the certainty of catastrophic climate change down the road.

I think its naive to think TPTB will allow us to "pull together". They are masters of sabotage. Think COINTELPRO. They put their agents into organizations, and those agents wreck the solidarity with proposals that divide the organization. Pulling together requires some counter-intelligence. That's what I'm doing with my AOC monitoring.

So it bothers me when I come across quite a few folks on this forum ranking on the very few class conscious representatives who have managed to get elected despite tremendous odds against them including AOC.

I do not get that AOC is "class conscious". My whole point is that she is using IdPol to undermine class consciousness, and to entangle a scientific debate about climate change in a centuries old societal conflict.

Only 16 congressmen and women signed on against military action in Venezuela, where our embassy officials have today been withdrawn. AOC was one of those 16, so no matter what she said that maligned the New Deal, I still think there's much decency in her and a lot more than in the 200 plus other reps who seem intent on war or destructive sabotage.

I haven't validated the following yet, and the source is kindy iffy; but it is consistent with her pattern:

my favorite tankies on twitter finally got wind of ocasio et.al.'s 'letter to mob boss pompeo', bashing the shite out of maduro, then asking him not to intervene militarily unless congress or the UN mandates it. gawd's blood. when she burst upon the scene, it was shouted from the rootops: "And she has a peace plan!" then swiftly voted aye on the defense of nato law. jeebus, frauds abound.

I feel much the same way about you comparing AOC at the age of 29 and three months into office
to Amity Shlaes.

Shlaes first book, "Germany: The Empire Within", was published in 1991, when she was 31. She got plenty of exposure among the hard right reactionary crowd, right away. But, she wasn't a Congressperson or a media superstar.

So, if anything, AOC is more famous than Shlaes at the same age; and you could tell from the beginning who Shlaes was. I still say you can tell exactly who AOC is:

The commonalities: they both shoot their mouths off about stuff they are unqualified to pronounce upon. They both are media darlings, despite their lack of experience or credientials. They both shat upon FDR and the New Deal.

I feel much the same way about you comparing AOC at the age of 29 and three months into office
to Amity Shlaes.

So what's your game plan? Short game, long game? Ya really think there's the possibility of a long game at this point?

Just watch the empire crumble and do what you can to expedite it?

I very personally experienced the end of the Soviet empire. I really don't think anything similar is going to happen to the US. If anything, I'm anticipating and dreading the exact opposite. Or alternatively, the destruction of the human race and the planet.

So rather than wallow or relish in cynicism, I'm gonna opt to hope and work so that Bernie might at least throw a monkey wrench into the madness.

...subjects are built-up to be brought down. "It's the way things work." (i.e.: one of the main reasons why our government's so f*cked up these days.) Our media is more sensationalist than ever. When there's no story, they simply make it up! Haven't you folks learned anything?

I feel much the same way about you comparing AOC at the age of 29 and three months into office
to Amity Shlaes.

Shlaes first book, "Germany: The Empire Within", was published in 1991, when she was 31. She got plenty of exposure among the hard right reactionary crowd, right away. But, she wasn't a Congressperson or a media superstar.

So, if anything, AOC is more famous than Shlaes at the same age; and you could tell from the beginning who Shlaes was. I still say you can tell exactly who AOC is:

The commonalities: they both shoot their mouths off about stuff they are unqualified to pronounce upon. They both are media darlings, despite their lack of experience or credientials. They both shat upon FDR and the New Deal.

I know the New Deal was designed and implemented with preferential treatment for white people, but what wasn't in America? The New Deal was no more racist than America at the time, the American Military, Local and State Governments.

that doesn't mean that overall it was bad. AOC is actually right when she says home ownership in the hands of a selected group makes that group wealthier, that it makes the children who inherit that property richer than those who were excluded.

If her point is that any "new deal" should benefit everybody then who's disagreeing?

Or should we ignore any flaws in the New Deal because that would look bad?

I know the New Deal was designed and implemented with preferential treatment for white people, but what wasn't in America? The New Deal was no more racist than America at the time, the American Military, Local and State Governments.

that doesn't mean that overall it was bad. AOC is actually right when she says home ownership in the hands of a selected group makes that group wealthier, that it makes the children who inherit that property richer than those who were excluded.

If her point is that any "new deal" should benefit everybody then who's disagreeing?

Or should we ignore any flaws in the New Deal because that would look bad?

up

0 users have voted.

—

the little things you can do are more valuable than the giant things you can't! - @thanatokephaloides. On Twitter @wink1radio. (-2.1) All about building progressive media.

I know the New Deal was designed and implemented with preferential treatment for white people, but what wasn't in America? The New Deal was no more racist than America at the time, the American Military, Local and State Governments.

To call it a "racist deal" is to completely miss the point and to sully the idea of government doing New Deal type things for ALL Americans... And there it is... the dog whistle, amirite or what?

As a leftist, you don't shit on the New Deal as racist. It's a class/race short circuit argument. I find that to be rather troubling coming from "the left". I'm sensing lots of market based solutions coming out of AOC. And don't forget the public private partnerships...

with my guts feelings the first time I see and listen to them. Most of the time the first impressions remain truthful for years to come. I think after Obama, I do not make misjudgements anymore.
I agree much with what arendt wrote. And please keep Gabbard out of the comparison games. Gabbard has not been so far in the club of the 'AOC league of bad actresses using racism to make noise'.

@mimi
that after seeing more of her SXSW interview, if she's faking it, just a front for the big corp boys, she is putting on an Academy Award-worthy performance.

with my guts feelings the first time I see and listen to them. Most of the time the first impressions remain truthful for years to come. I think after Obama, I do not make misjudgements anymore.
I agree much with what arendt wrote. And please keep Gabbard out of the comparison games. Gabbard has not been so far in the club of the 'AOC league of bad actresses using racism to make noise'.

She certainly knows more than most 30 year olds
and, if anything, I'm more impressed with her now than I was Election Night!
She might be a fauxgressive, like so many of them are, or just not as progressive as many would like. But for my money I'll take 130 more just like her! To replace the 130 "Democrats" that won't support BernieCare.

#23 that after seeing more of her SXSW interview, if she's faking it, just a front for the big corp boys, she is putting on an Academy Award-worthy performance.

up

0 users have voted.

—

the little things you can do are more valuable than the giant things you can't! - @thanatokephaloides. On Twitter @wink1radio. (-2.1) All about building progressive media.